NOTES 



THE LATE REVISION 



The New Testament Version. 



BY THE . 

REV. DANIEL R. GOODWIN. 



3 ))/ 



of 



New York: 

THOMAS WHITTAKER. 

1883. 



0* 



% 



<$>*$* 



Copyright, 1883 
By DANIEL R. GOODWIN. 



ADVERTISEMENT 



A portion of these Notes, with the Introduction, have ap- 
peared in the "American Church Review" for which they 
were originally prepared ; and this must be at once the expla- 
nation and the excuse for the assumption of certain modes of 
expression belonging to the style of the reviewer. 



NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION OF THE 
NEW TESTAMENT VERSION. 



INTRODUCTION. 



These notes have a subordinate and restricted purpose. 
They are not intended as a thorough review, or as the com- 
plete basis of a final judgment. They look only at a part 
of one side of the case. 

i. They are not intended at all to point out the merits 
of the Revision, but only some of its faults. It is freely 
and fully admitted that the Revisers have made important 
corrections and many improvements. Indeed it were pass- 
ing strange if so many biblical critics, selected from the 
ripest scholarship of Great Britain and America, after de- 
voting so many years to their task, had failed to make such 
emendations. No scholar of even the most moderate 
pretension could have failed to make many such in far 
less time. Though this would seem, therefore, no great 
ground of boasting, we cheerfully accord the Revisers all 
the credit they can claim on this score. But the counter- 
balancing faults, if such there be, must be considered be- 
fore making up a final judgment. We propose to furnish 
from this quarter some of the material for such a judg- 
ment. 

2. We set aside all reference to changes in the Greek 
text, and the consequent changes in the version. In this 
department lie the most interesting and important ques- 
tions of criticism. In most of these alterations, and in 
some of the most important, we are free to say that, in our 
humble judgment, the Revisers are right. But we pass 
this question by entirely. 



8 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

3. In our strictures upon the other changes introduced 
into the version by the Revisers we may sometimes call in 
question the accuracy or the propriety of their translation 
in itself considered ; but more frequently we shall call in 
question the necessity or importance of the changes, under 
the rule by which they professed to be guided — viz., " to 
introduce as few alterations as possible into the text of the 
Authorized Version consistently with faithfulness." Some 
have seemed to think it a sufficient justification of any 
change, that it is, in any degree, an improvement ; and to 
assume that, in such a case, faithfulness required it. But 
the rule just cited is, and was evidently intended to be, a 
special restriction ; it is a restriction, moreover, which was 
doubtless in consonance with the purpose of Convocation, 
and which commends itself to the general approval of the 
Christian community. The Revisers professed to act un- 
der it. But could they have understood, can any intelli- 
gent man understand, that rule to mean simply that they 
were to introduce no alterations which, in their judgment, 
would not be, in some degree, improvements ? To sup- 
pose such to be the meaning of the rule were to stultify the 
Committee who made it and who were to act under it : for 
it would imply that the Committee thought it necessary 
solemnly to guard themselves against making alterations 
which they should judge to be no improvements at all ; 
and a Committee for whom such a solemn resolution should 
have been necessary were certainly a Committee beneath 
the task assigned to them, not to say beneath contempt. 
In considering, therefore, any alteration in the version we 
shall regard it as pertinent to ask, not only, Is this a cor- 
rect translation ? or, Is it, in some critical sense or degree, 
an improvement upon the Authorized Version ? but, Is it 
required by faithfulness? And we shall regard this last ques- 
tion as having a different meaning and bearing from the 
others. 

4. Wc shall avoid setting our own mere opinion or judg- 
ment against that of so many learned men, the ripest 
scholars of the age ; and rarely shall we thus set our own 
reasonings merely; but, in most of our animadversions, we 



IN TROD UC TION. 9 

shall undertake to show that the Revisers are inconsistent 
with themselves ; and thus we shall appeal to them as their 
own judges. When any of these inconsistencies are palpa- 
bly shown, it may be replied that they are mere oversights. 
They may be mere oversights ; but, even so, none would 
be more earnest or glad to have them corrected than the 
learned Revisers themselves. And, after all, the question 
is not how far the Revisers may be excused for faults and 
inconsistencies, if they have committed any, but whether, 
with such faults and inconsistencies, their work is such as 
it ought to be for the purpose for which it was intended — 
to become a final substitute for the Authorized Version. 

5. Whenever, and in so far as, any alterations involve in 
any degree theological, or dialectic, or doctrinal consider- 
ations, if we differ from the Revisers, we shall not regard 
it as temerariously pitting our solitary and insignificant 
authority against that of the ripest scholars and greatest 
theologians of the age, but we shall take to our side the 
forty-seven translators of the Authorized Version. Those 
men, if they had not had the opportunity of studying the 
modern grammars and lexicons of the Greek, if they had 
not seen the recently discovered manuscripts and the latest 
improved text, were yet, in sound theological learning and 
in dialectic training, the undoubted peers of the best lin- 
guists and critics " of to-day." 

6. We shall proceed upon the assumption that a good 
translation from Greek into English must not only express 
the exact sense of the Greek, but must also express it in 
English, in good English, pure, idiomatic English ; not 
only in English words, but in English style and construc- 
tion. If it cannot be expressed in good English, it cannot 
be translated, but must, so far, be left to scholars and com- 
mentators to paraphrase and explain. The nearest ap- 
proximation to the exact sense of the Greek which can be 
made in good idiomatic English, without offending the 
English taste or ear, is the best English translation that 
can be made. To invent a sort of Greek-English patois, to 
resort to a tyro's construing, with a view of giving the 
English reader a kind of facsimile of the Greek, is not to 



io AZOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

translate into English at all. Languages differ in the col- 
location of words as well as in the words themselves ; and 
often the proper order is to be determined by an appeal to 
the ear or to usage, not to logic, and still less from the 
English to the Greek. So, too, for the repetition or varia- 
tion of words. A repetition, which may be a positive 
beauty in one language, may, in a given connection, be 
simply barbarous or positively offensive in another. So, 
oftentimes, with the use of more general or more specific 
terms. In English a traveller goes to see the world, we do 
not say he goes to behold it ; though the ancient Greek 
might use the more specific word B-SGopeoj, to behold or 
view. In English a man sees a wolf coming, we do not say 
he beholds him ; and we should say, " what you see me 
have," not " what you behold me having." Also, in Eng- 
lish there are certain established phrases or forms of expres- 
sion which have so long been used as the correspondents to 
certain Greek phrases, that to change them in order to 
secure a so-called literal or exact translation would be 
sheer pedantry — a new coining of an artificial English ; as, 
e.g., if " the kingdom of heaven" were Grecized into " the 
kingdom of the heavens," or " the children of Israel " into 
" the sons of Israel." 

7. It is not necessary to faithfulness of translation that a 
given word in one language should always — while retain- 
ing the same intrinsic meaning — be rendered by the same 
word in another language. The rendering may be varied 
in view, not only of the intrinsic meaning, but of the gen- 
eral air and associations of the different passages, or of the 
habits of expression in the different languages, or of their 
comparative copiousness of diction. Suppose, e.g., that 
Shakespeare were tc be translated into Persian verse — it 
would not give a fair idea of him to Persian readers, if, 
where the Persian poetic diction should have a hundred 
terms for one English epithet, the same Persian term 
should be used throughout for this same English word ; 
even though this English word had the same intrinsic 
meaning in all the cases. The translators of 161 1 recog- 
nized this principle, and they purposely and professedly 



INTRODUCTION. n 

varied their renderings accordingly. In some cases they 
may have pushed the application of the principle farther 
than was necessary or even proper. In strictly parallel 
passages there would seem to have been no good reason for 
such variations. And yet even in these extreme cases, if, 
in every passage, the sense of the Greek was accurately 
conveyed in the English, and if our ears and our biblical 
literature had become habituated and conformed to the 
variation, there would seem to have been no sufficient rea- 
son for making a change in what was already received. 
Certainly faithfulness to God's Word did not require the 
change, for confessedly the true meaning of that Word 
was already, in each case, accurately rendered. But, it is 
said, if the same sense is found expressed in English in two 
forms, the reader will naturally infer that the form of ex- 
pression in the original also is different, and if it is not, he 
will be deceived ; we answer, the common English reader 
ought to be, and is, satisfied if he has the true sense of the 
original accurately expressed in good English. Not to one 
in ten thousand of such readers does it ever occur to make 
such an inference at all. And as for critical students, they 
have no right to make any such inference in regard to the 
Authorized Version ; because the translators have given ex- 
press notice that they did not hold themselves bound by 
any such rule of iron uniformity or literal correspondence. 
Translations are not made for the special accommodation 
of comparative critics. 

On the other hand, however, when the Revisers have 
adopted and expressly announced this principle of uniform 
correspondence, they are bound to adhere to it, otherwise 
they may deceive all their readers. Consistency would re- 
quire them to conform to it in connection with identical 
constructions as well as of identical words. Yet they freely 
render : " when he had taken it, he went," and " he, when 
he had taken it, went ;" or " he took it and went," " hav- 
ing taken it, he went," " taking it, he went" — all with 
complete indiscriminateness. Indeed they expressly tell 
us that they propose to introduce the participial construc- 
tion into the English — they do not say always, but more 



12 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

frequently ; thus acknowledging that they retain and use 
variety. But, passing by this, whenever they have varied 
the rendering of a given word while used in the same 
sense, they are chargeable with a serious fault, because, with 
their professions, they lead their readers to erroneous in- 
ferences. Besides, even if they were consistent in all these 
cases, we contend that it would be a consistency not re- 
quired by " faithfulness," and, therefore, lying beyond 
their province. Under this head they have brought in a 
vast amount of " consequential" damages which, we contend, 
the readers of the New Testament are not bound to pay. 

8. As to the use of the article. In this respect it was 
very generally supposed that the Authorized Version stood 
in special need of large emendations, in the light of the 
scholarship " of to-day." Indeed there was a multitude of 
grammarians and critics, who, to determine whether to put 
" the" or " a" before any English noun in the singular 
number, thought it necessary to inquire only whether there 
was or was not an article before its Greek correspondent J 
and, for the plural number, they required the article to be 
inserted or omitted in the English, just as it was in the 
Greek : and they were clamorous to have the New Testa- 
ment version corrected accordingly. These have got small 
comfort from the Revisers, but more, we fear, than they 
deserved. Our Revisers were far above any such sweep- 
ing, schoolmaster ideas. They had a scholarship far too 
broad and generous for such narrow and Procrustean 
notions. They knew that the rules for the insertion or 
omission of the article in Greek were in many cases different 
from the usage of the English ; that those rules were sub- 
ject to many exceptions in good Greek usage, and that 
there were many cases where the article was inserted or 
omitted without any general reason which we can discover. 
Moreover, the use of the English article is far from being 
reducible to fixed and universal rules, but varies from time 
to time and from man to man. Locke wrote an " Essay 
concerning human understanding." We now say it was 
concerning " the human understanding." And the use of 
the article with " reason" has varied and even vibrated in 



IN TR OD UCTION. 1 3 

the course of two hundred years. Accordingly, the inser- 
tion or omission of the article in a translation will depend 
largely upon the good taste and good judgment of the 
translator, in view of the genius of the two languages and 
the drift and scope of the discourse, rather than of any for- 
mal rules. If in these respects we have great reason to 
defer to the Revisers, have we not equal reason to defer to 
the translators of 1611 ? We think the Revisers have, in 
this particular, yielded to the vulgar clamor more than was 
called for, and have made changes not required by faith- 
fulness. But, after all, in innumerable instances they have 
inserted the article in English where it is omitted in Greek, 
and often omitted it in English where it is inserted in 
Greek. Where there is no Greek article before a singular 
noun they have sometimes inserted "a" and sometimes 
not ; and they have even inserted "a" for the Greek arti- 
cle itself. Where, in all this, they have diverged from the 
Authorized Version, they are, in many cases, undoubtedly 
right ; but, in many other and most important cases — 
quczrel Their authority is greatly shattered if it can be 
shown that they are inconsistent with themselves. Take 
for instance the insertion or omission of the article before 
the word " heaven." We can only say, in all humility, 
that it surpasses our ingenuity to find or guess by what 
pule or rules they were guided. They have omitted the 
article alike when the Greek inserts and when it omits it ; 
and in many instances, as far as we can see, have inserted 
or omitted it arbitrarily. Yet in multitudes of these cases 
they have altered the Authorized Version. Can any one 
show how or why, taken as a whole, the Authorized Ver- 
sion is not, in this case of the article with the word 
" heaven," as faithful to the Greek and as good English 
as is the Revision, with all its studied improvements ? The 
contortions by which the Revisers elsewhere seek to express 
the presumed distinction indicated by the absence of the 
Greek article are something ludicrous. 

9. Another great hue and cry has been persistently 
raised against the Authorized Version for its numberless 
blunders in the rendering of the Greek aorist tenses. 



14 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

From the multitude and noise of these critics, all radiant 
and blatant with the new light and fresh inspiration from 
the modern apocalypse of the mysteries of Greek grammar, 
one might suppose that the learned translators of 1611 were 
simple ignoramuses in regard to the structure of the Greek 
language. It seems to have been assumed by many — and 
modern English scholars have given too much countenance 
to the idea — that the Greek aorist was of course to be 
rendered by the English simple preterite throughout, or 
that every departure from this rule must justify itself by 
irrefragable proofs as an extraordinary exception or even 
as a solecism ; or else be condemned as a false translation. 
But, on mature examination, the facts are found to be : (a) 
That this rule holds, with any degree of strictness, only in 
sustained narrative discourse ; (b) In numberless instances 
the English employs its compound preterite or perfect 
where the Greek uses the aorist ; and that not in the Bible 
only, or from the influence of the Latin Vulgate upon our 
former translators, but in our current discourse, from the 
influence, it may be, of the Latin language upon the struct- 
ure of the English. Each language has its idioms ; and 
other European tongues have gone farther in this direction 
than we — the Italian, the French and the German famil- 
iarly using their compound preterites where we in English 
should use the simple preterite ; (c) In poetical and pro- 
phetic composition, in the epistolary and conversational 
style, in personal addresses and exhortations, in impas- 
sioned utterances, in teaching, in brief or fragmentary 
statements of fact — in short, in a very large part of Holy 
Scripture — the Greek uses the aorist where the English- 
would naturally use the perfect ; and that so freely, that in 
such cases no a pi'iori probability can be claimed for the 
preterite over the perfect, as the proper English translation 
of the Greek aorist. 

The Revisers, far wiser critics than the average of the 
later school — though we think they have been too much in- 
fluenced by the clamors of these absolutists — have, in by 
far the greater number of instances, we should judge, fol- 
lowed the former translators in rendering the aorist by the 






IN TROD UCTION. 1 5 

English perfect. In some of their divergences in this par- 
ticular they are probably right ; but, in many if not in 
most of these cases, we must take the liberty of siding 
with the translators of 161 1 rather than with the Revisers. 
They themselves have rendered the aorist by the English 
perfect too often to claim that the mere fact of the Greek 
form being aorist proves that the English must be preter- 
ite. Whether the English should be perfect or preterite 
must very often be determined by the general character 
and drift of the discourse, by the immediate context and 
the nature of the case, by general analogy and, perhaps, by 
doctrinal considerations, as well as, especially, by the 
natural English idiom. And for sound sense and good 
judgment in these particulars, it is no want of due respect 
to the learned Revisers to say that we think we have as 
good reason to defer to the authority of the translators of 
161 1 as to theirs. Some cases are beyond all question of 
any party, as when the demoniac child falls as one dead, 
insomuch that many said, oat&avzv. This is the Greek 
aorist ; but the English must be " he is dead ;" it cannot 
be " he died." 

10. As to the number of the changes made by the 
Revisers. We see it set down at 35,000, and, though we have 
made no enumeration ourselves, we should judge that esti- 
mate to be not far from the truth. Now the number of 
changes recognized by them in the Greek text, including 
those in the margin with the rest, is about 5500; by far the 
greater part of which are of the least possible importance ; 
and, of the others, a large number are still of very doubtful 
authority, the best textualists changing their minds from 
edition to edition. But, as we have before said, we now 
dispute none of these new readings. If to these we add, say 
10,000 changes more, as having been required by what could 
reasonably be called faithfulness to the original, we think a 
very generous allowance will have been made ; for we cannot 
include in this class the cases where the Revisers have been 
inconsistent with themselves, or have substituted mere Gre- 
cisms of expression or of construction for idiomatic English. 
There will then remain nearly 20,000 changes either wanton, 



1 6 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

or trifling, or consequential, or Grecisms, or inconsistencies 
— or, perchance, proposed improvements of the English 
style; as in their elaborate reconstructions of "also," 
" therefore," etc. As to this last class of changes, we leave 
the English reader to judge whether in general, for good 
English style, the Revision is superior to the Authorized 
Version. 

These notes may seem very extended, and some of them 
very minute ; but we protest against the inference that they 
are exhaustive. They are, after all, but specimens, and 
even random specimens at that. They are the result of one 
cursory examination of the Revision, currently jotted down, 
and afterward expanded with cross-references, and shaped 
so as to make them, at least in some degree, readable. A 
subsequent review of any chapter has always brought up a 
new crop of queries and objections ; they are still as thick 
as August blackberries. Should such a review as this have 
been undertaken by another person, there can be no doubt 
that a very large part — not unlikely the largest part — of the 
passages and points animadverted upon would have been 
different from those here criticised, and many of them 
probably much more striking and important than any in- 
cluded in these notes. 

In concluding these introductory statements, we must al- 
lude to one trifling point which we have not seen referred 
to — probably because it is so trifling — but which may have 
some significance. We refer to the spelling "judgement, " 
adhered to by the Revisers throughout. Is this a specimen 
of the changes which they judge to be required by faith- 
fulness ? Did they borrow it from the translators of 1611 ? 
If so, why did they not give us " wisedome" also — for such 
is the spelling of King James's translators. How far this 
newly introduced archaism of spelling "judgement" for 
judg??ient may have become prevalent in England we do not 
know; but "judgment" is the spelling of Johnson's Dic- 
tionary, of all the Oxford Bibles, we believe, for centuries, 
and of the best editions of English standard authors from 
about the year 1700. Why then this change ? Do the Re- 
visers propose to appear in the role of spelling-reformers ? 



ST. MATTHEW. 17 

Before the Revision was undertaken, it had always been 
put forward as one important and leading reason for mak- 
ing it, that the English language had greatly changed in 
nearly 300 years, and that the translation needed to be ac- 
commodated to modern use. But the Revisers have made 
it a principle to remove no archaisms, provided they were 
intelligible. In avoiding many changes of this kind, we 
think they were right. But, in fact, instead of diminishing 
the archaisms, they have increased and intensified them ; 
not only retaining "which" for "who," "or" for "ere," 
"be" for "are;" and "wot," ''wist," " alway," etc.; but 
sometimes putting " alway" for " always," " the which," for 
"which," etc.; and multiplying the use of " howbeit," 
" straightway," etc. 

In what follows we expect to commit many oversights ; 
but it is due to ourselves to remind our readers that we have 
not had the aid of twenty others to revise and correct our 
solitary work. 

ST. MATTHEW. 
I. 

18. "Had been betrothed," for "was espoused;" but 
verse 20, "thought," and ii. 1, "was born." These are all 
alike for aorist participles in the genitive absolute, depend- 
ing on aorist verbs. 

21. "It is he that shall save," for " He shall save"= 
avros 6GQ6E1. But (1) the Revisers have elsewhere trans- 
lated avroz by " he" most frequently, as in Matt. xiv. 2 ; 
xxi. 27; Mark iv. 27; Col. i. 17, iS, etc., etc. ; frequently by 
" he himself," as in Luke x. 1 ; John vi. 6, etc. ; and some- 
times by "himself" alone, as in Matt. viii. 17 : but nowhere 
else, out of more than a hundred places, have they ever 
translated it by this phrase, " it is he that." Wherefore, 
then, this special translation here ? (2) If, and so far as, 
this phrase differs in sense from "he" or "he himself" or 
"himself," it differs, we apprehend, from the true sense of 
the original, in which there is implied, we think, something 
peculiar, inherent, spontaneous, absolute, and not merely 



i8 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

demonstrative or antithetical. (3) This rendering is, at 
best, not a translation but a paraphrase, and this is its deci- 
sive condemnation. "It is he that shall save" is not a 
translation of ctvroz ggd<7£1} but of cxvto* [or exeivos or 
ovrof\ ianv 6 (TgjGgov: see Luke xxiv. 21 ; John ix. 37; 
xiii. 26; xiv. 21; Acts x. 42; compare Matt. xi. 19; Luke 
xxii. 23, 28, etc. 

23. " The virgin" for " a virgin" = 77 7tocp^Lvo^. So they 
have put "the sower" for "a sower" (Matt. xiii. 3, etc.). 
This is well enough, but is the change necessary? After 
all, the sense remains substantially the same; for who can 
doubt that, however personally definite ff rtap^tvol may 
have been in the mind of the prophet, in the mind of the 
evangelist the application had become generalized ? So that 
"the virgin" means "she (or the person or the woman) who 
is a virgin;" just as " the sower" means " he (in fact any 
man) who is a sower." So the Revisers have rendered rf 
^w//"awoman," John xvi. 21; rc5 ipevSei "a lie," Rom. 
i. 25 ; rou av$pGD7tov " a man," Rom. vii. 1 ; 1 Cor. ii. 11; 
rij nopvy "a harlot," 1 Cor. vi. 16; and roc dai/xovia 
"devils" in instances unnumbered. 

They have also substituted here "which is, being inter- 
preted," for " which, being interpreted, is !" How impor- 
tant ! how necessary to faithfulness ! for is not that the 
order of the Greek ? Why did they not add " with us God" 
for " God with us" ? 

II. 

2. "Saw" for "have seen" = ei'do/Aev, and then "are 
come" = i/XSo/jev. 

4. "Gathering" for "when he had gathcred"= avva- 
yaycov. So, at verse 11, " opening" for "when they had 
opened" = avoi^avre S. Is this necessary? But see xiv. 
23, "After he had sent" for " when he had sent"= ano- 
KvffacS $ Mark xiv. 23, "when lie had given thanks" = 
&vx<xpiGTrjGaS. (Compare Matt. xxvi. 27, " gave thanks, 
and" = EvxoLpi6rrj(Sa^ — the A. V. is not bound to be uni- 
form even in parallel passages, but the Revisers are.) See 
also Acts xx i. 2, 3, 4, where we have " having found" twice 



ST. MATTHEW. 19 

for " finding" == evpcov, and "when we had come," etc., 
for an aorist participle; and all these, like a way ay gov 
and avoi^arrSs, belonging to the subjects of aorist verbs. 
So also, at verse 9, "they having heard" for "when they 
had heard." 

13. " Until I tell thee" for " until I bring thee word." 
18. "A voice was heard in Raman" for " In Ramah was 
there a voice heard." Are these changes necessary to faith- 
fulness ? 

23. " That he should be called" for " he shall be called" 
— on K\.r]$r]GeTai. The original familiarly mixes both 
constructions ; but why, in English, should one be neces- 
sarily substituted here for the other ? See Matt. xvi. 7 ; 
Mark i. 15, 37, etc., where, as in almost innumerable sim- 
ilar cases, they render in the oratio recta without the orz. 
Was it any of their business to modify the rendering here 
in view of the difficulty of finding the prophecy referred 
to? 

III. 

3. " The voice of one crying," as A. V., though there is 
no article in the Greek. But see "An unknown God," 
Acts xvii. 23. " Make ready" for " prepare" = iroijddffare, 
though "make" is repeated immediately after. They have 
often rendered this verb by "prepare," as in Luke xxiii. 
56; xxiv. 1; John xiv. 2, 3 ; 1 Cor. ii. 9; 2 Tim. ii. 21 ; 
Philem. 22; Heb. xi. 16; Rev. viii. 6; ix. 7; xii. 6; etc. 
Perchance the learned Revisers saw some nice distinction 
to which they felt bound to be faithful, and their transla- 
tion might be well enough in itself; but was a change nec- 
essary ? 

7. "Warned" for "hath warned" = vnedei^ev. Was 
this necessary to faithfulness ? 

17. "Am well pleased" = evdoxrjff a, and so also at xii. 
18. Very well; but 'what becomes of faithfulness to the 
aorist ? 

IV. 

3. "And the tempter came and said to him" for "And 
when the tempter came to him he said." Here the new 



20 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

text changes the place of " to him ; " but it is still implied 
with 7tpo<jeXBojv — see viii. 2, new text ; viii. 25 and xxviii. 
18. But is the change of construction required by faith- 
fulness ? Either mode of construction for the Greek par- 
ticipial clause is allowed in English ; and according to its 
avowed principles, the A. V. uses now one and now the 
other. The Revisers had just used the construction with 
"when" in a perfectly parallel case of the Greek. What 
then prompted the change here ? It could not be faithful- 
ness to the Greek. Was it to improve the English by vary- 
ing the form of expression and preventing the disagreeable 
recurrence of similar sounds ? But this is scarcely consis- 
tent with their own principles in their multitudinous con- 
sequential changes. Surely the simple English reader 
would infer that the Greek construction was different in 
the two cases here, where they make the English construc- 
tion different — would infer it quite as likely, and with quite 
as much damage to his exact knowledge of the Word of 
God, as he would infer that there were different words 
in Greek for " immediately" and " straightway," if, in 
otherwise parallel passages in St. Matthew and St. Mark, 
one of the English words were used in one case and 
the other in another. And as to their regard for the 
English ear, look at their harsh and slavish repetitions of 
"enter," Matt, xxiii. 13; of "mad," Acts xxvi. 24, 25; and 
of " subject," 1 Cor. xv. 27, 28. But to see the finishing 
touch put to the changes required by faithfulness, turn to 
Matt. xxv. 3. There they substitute "the foolish, when 
they took their lamps, took no oil with them" for "the 
foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them." There 
the Greek participial construction is precisely the same as 
here at Matt. iv. 3, but the change they make is precisely 
the reverse. Is this faithfuness ? or is it wantonness ? or 
what is it? It is far from being a solitary instance of such 
inconsistencies. 

4. " It is written" (not " it lias been written") = yeyf)a7trai. 
That we have, in English, this form of the perfect passive 
is noted here for further use; but see v. 10. Note also, 
"by" = ini: " out of" = tfz<*. 



ST. MATTHEW. 21 

7. " Again, it is written" for " it is written again." Eut 
see verse 4, where they did not say, with the Greek, " Not 
by bread alone shall man live." 

15. " The land of Zebulun and the land," etc. No article 
in the Greek. 

17. Why not follow the Greek faithfully and say "the 
kingdom of the heavens " ? 

23. "Disease" {voaov) and "sickness" {jioiKaniav) for 
" sickness and disease." Very nice and well. But then 
in verse 24 they should have said " all who were ill," etc., 
instead of "all who were sick," for the Greek expression 
has, in form, no relation to juahaxlav, though the simple 
English reader might think so. "The sick" are sick with 
" diseases," see here and at Luke iv. 40. Here and at Matt. 
x. 1, Separtsveiv (vogovs) is "to heal;" at Luke ix. 1 it 
is rendered " to cure." What will the simple reader think ? 

V. 

3. "In spirit" = rep itvevp-ati. But see John xi. ^$, " in 
the spirit." 

8. " In heart" = rfj xapdia : not " in the heart." Yet at 
verse 1 they carefully put "the mountain" for "a moun- 
tain," and at viii. 12, etc., "the weeping" for " weeping," 

9. "Sons" for "the children;" but, for article, see iv. 

3,6. 

12 and 45. " In heaven" = iv ro:S ovpavoli : see vi. 20, 
where "in heaven" = iv oupavep. 

18. " Heaven and earth" = 6 ovp. and 7/ yr/. But see 
Acts iv. 24. 

2I ? 2 7> 33> 38,43. " Ye have heard" = r/xovorare — not 
" ye heard." 

32. "Is put away;" why not "has been put away"? 
See verse 10. 

34. "The throne of God" for " God's throne." Why? 
Does "God's word" mean anything else than "the word of 
God" ? Would swearing by " God's throne"' be swearing 
by " a throne of God "? — Articular nicety. 

35. "The footstool of his feet" for "his footstool." 
What dialect of English is this? Grant that the Greek 



22 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

has this redundant form, must we use it, English or no 
English ? 

37. " Of the evil one" = €K rov Ttovrjpov. 

39. Why not " the evil one" for rep novrfpep also ? Do the 
Revisers mean "the evil o?ie" and " him that is evil" to 
have the same or a different import ? 

45. " That ye may be" (not " may become") = yerrf<j$£. 

VI. 

2. " When therefore" for " Therefore, when" = otav our. 
And so, often. But does faithfulness require this change? 
Is a translator bound to follow the order of the Greek 
words ? Besides, which is the most logical English ? Does 
the illation refer to the clause with " when," or to the 
clause on which that depends? But see vii. 20. It is true 
that in this last phrase apays is for " therefore" and stands 
first in Greek ; but is any English reader to infer that 
"therefore" has a different sense here in English ^because 
it has a different position ? The truth is, in English " there- 
fore" may stand first or second in a clause, and the question 
here is about the necessity of a change. 

2,5, and 16. " Have received" for " have" = a7ttxov(Xiv. 
What then would aneax^oiGi mean ? In Philemon 15 the 
Revisers put " have" for " receive" = ajrexyS ! 

4 and 6. "In secret" = iv tgq Kpv7tTGo: not "in the se- 
cret place." 

5. "To stand and pray" for " to pray standing" = eGTGjres 
rtpo6£vx&6'S(xi. Yet they claim to have improved the trans- 
lation by a freer use of the participial construction in Eng- 
lish. 

6. "Having shut" for " when thou hast shut." But see 
iv. 2, vii. 6, etc., etc. 

7. "Gentiles" for " heathen" = iSvinoi (ethnics). But 
ordinarily " Gentiles" is for eSvrf. 

Ev is rendered " for" (their much speaking). 

9— 11. In the Lord's Prayer the Revisers have refrained 
from making many changes which consistency with the 
changes elsewhere made would require. But if such changes 
were demanded by faithfulness at all, they were most stren- 



ST. MATTHEW. 23 

uously demanded precisely in the most familiar and oft- re- 
peated passages. Here, however, the order is freely varied 
from the Greek to accommodate English idiom and even 
English rhythm. If they had followed their own precedents, 
the Prayer would have read something like this: "Our 
Father which (or. even thou that) art in the heavens ; Hal- 
lowed be thy name. Come thy kingdom. Come to pass 
(or accomplished be) [see i. 22 and v. 18] thy will, as in 
heaven, so on earth. Our bread which is (or, even that 
which is) daily, give us to-day." As to " the evil one' for 
"evil," we think the preponderating evidence from New 
Testament usage and from early testimony is in favor of 
their translation. Still, as there is much room for doubt, 
and as " evil " includes all that is contained in the other ex- 
pression, perhaps they would have done better if they had 
interchanged their text and marginal reading; or had put 
"the evil" into the text here and at John xvii. 15, as the 
A. V. had done in the latter passage. 

14. Their painful faithfulness in the construction of 
"also" should have led them to say here: "you also shall 
your heavenly Father forgive." See also verse 21. 

26. " Are not ye" for " are ye not." How important ! 

27, 28. Note the difference between the Greek and the 
English in the order of emphasis. Here they leave the 
Greek and follow the English. 

30. "If . . . doth so clothe" for " if . . . so clothe." This 
was to avoid " clotheth." But they might have accomplished 
this purpose by simply retaining the subjunctive form in 
the English ; as they have done at vi. 23 (ad fin.) Luke xi. 
36; 1 Pet. iv. 17; Phil. iv. 8; Rom. xii. 18; Matt. viii. 31; 
xiv. 28 ; xxvi. 39; 1 Cor. xiv. 5; Rom. viii. 9, 17, etc. 

33. " His kingdom and his righteousness." The first " his" 
is not in the Revisers' text. 

34. "Will be" for "shall be." But is it not an assurance, 
of the nature of a promise, rather than of a mere predic- 
tion ? 

VII. 

3. "Beholdest" = fiXirtSiS. But see xix. 26. 
6. " Under" = iv = among. 



24 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION 

9. " Shall ask him for a loaf" for u ask bread "== airrjGei 
aprov. There is no "him" in the Greek ; it is not needed 
in English; and it makes confusion with the next "him." 
See 10th verse. 

12. " All things therefore" for " therefore all things." As 
at vi. 2 ; but see verse 20. 

13. " Many be they that enter in thereby" for " many there 
be which go in thereat." What's the difference ? They often 
render s'pxo/xai by "go." See Matt, xxiii. 13, note. 

15. "False prophets, which" = tgjv jp£vdo-rpocp^rojv 7 
oirives. But what has become of the article? Is it not as 
essential to the prophets as it is to the mountain, or to the 
weeping and gnashing? If they had rendered oiriveS by 
" for they," as at Phil. iv. 3, they might have retained the 
article with " false prophets" without any ambiguity. 

16. " By their fruits ye shall know them." The Revisers 
have changed the order of the A. V. here to conform to the 
order in the Greek, and in verse 20 of A. V. ; but at xii. 
33 they have forgotten themselves, and returned to the 
order of the A. V. at this verse 16. 

20. i( Therefore" for "wherefore" = a pays. What is the 
difference ? 

27. " Smote" for " beat" = 7rpo(?c'HOipav(?). 

28. "When Jesus ended" for . . . "had ended." But 
see Mark vii. 17; Luke xxii. 14; John xiii. 31; xxi. 15 ; 
Acts xi. 2 ; Rev. v. 8, etc. 

29. " Taught" = rjv SidaGKoov. But see xix. 22, " was 
one that had" = i/v e'xgov* 

VIII. 

1, 5. Aorist participles in dative rendered by "when" and 
the pluperfect. 

6. " In the house" for "at home" = ev rT\ oiHin\ Why 
not, then, put " is laid," or " hath been laid," for " lieth " = 
pipXrirai} 

12. "Cast forth" for "cast out" (ntfiaXXcj). But see 
verse 16 and xxii. 13. And then "the weeping and gnash- 
ing of teeth " {tgjv odorroov). 



ST. MATTHEW. 25 

14. "Lying" for "laid and" = /3 s (3\rf jut vrjv nai : and 
yet " footstool of his feet" ! 

16. Why not say, "And all that were sick he healed," 
after the Greek order? See their translation at xx. 26. 

19. "A" for "a certain" = sis ; also at ix. iS. "There 
came" for " came" (?). 

25. " Save, Lord " for " Lord, save us" =Kvpie P 6gd6ov. 
What now about faithfulness to the Greek ? " We perish," 
not "we are perishing;" why not ? See 2 Cor. ii. 15. 

26. "There was a great calm," not " there followed " = 
syivsro. But see Rev. xi. 15, 19, etc. 

31. " Herd of swine" (tgdv x°ip° DV )- See to opos. Cf. 

vii. 6. 

IX. 

6. " On earth" = stzi rijs yr}$. See x. 34. 
8. "Which had given" = rov Sovra — not "even him 
which," nor " which gave." 

12. " But when he heard it he said" — not "but he, when 
he heard it, said" = 6 St dxov<ja$ sinsv. But see xii. 2 ; 
xxi. 38, etc., etc. 

13. "I desire mercy" for " I will have mercy" ="Elsov 
$e\Go. So at xxvii. 43, etc. ; but which is the simpler 
English? As for ambiguity in the A. V., the phrase is 
never used in the other sense without "on" or " upon" fol- 
lowing. 

31. "But they went forth and spread" for "But they, 
when they were departed, spread" = 01 Sc H;e\$6vt£S 
Sieq)i])j.i6av. But see Acts iv. 24, etc. ; also above at verse 
12. 

36. "Not having a (shepherd)" for "having no" = /iz) 
e'xovra noijieva. But see x. 9 ; xiii. 5, 6; Rev. iii. 2. 

X. 

2. "The first" = 7rpc5ro=. No Greek article. 

8. "Received" for " have received." Is this spoken of 
as a past historical event, or as a present fact ? 

16. " Serpents" = 01 ocpei? : " doves" = ai 7tepiffrepai. 
But see xxi. 12 and Mark iv. 7, "the thorns;" " the weeping 
and gnashing ;" " the sower," etc., etc. 



26 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

17, 18. The order is here changed to conform to the 
Greek, while at verse 5 a change is made in just the con- 
trary sense. Are these changes required by faithfulness ? 
They make no change in the meaning, and it is difficult to 
see how they mend the English. 

2i. "The father" = rtatrfp, English idiom; but "his" 
should also be "the;" and will not the distinction made in 
the translation, between " brother" and "the father," lead 
the English reader to suppose a distinction in the Greek ? 

23. "Gone through" for "gone over" = teXtGifTe. (?) 
"The next" should be "the other" ==ri)v irtpcxv — if we 
must have the article. 

24. "A disciple" for "the disciple." But see next verse, 
and see verses 21 and 35, and 2 Tim. ii. 24. 

25. " Be" = yerr/rai — not "become." 

2S. " Be not afraid of" for "fear not." This is to render 
the (X7i6 following; but what difference does it make in the 
sense ? 

32, 33. " Him will I also confess" (and so A. V.). In the 
Greek the " him" comes last. But see Rev. viii. 2, where 
the A. V. is altered to conform to the Greek. 

35. " A man," "the daughter" (bis) ; no Greek article in 
either case. " A man's foes" certainly means, to unsophisti- 
cated ears, " the foes of a man," and yet the Greek is ex^poi 
rov av$-pGD7rov, " foes of the man." See xii. 43. 

XI. 

2. " Now when John heard (for ' had heard ') in prison 
the works of the Christ (for ' of Christ'), he sent" = 6 6} 
Iooavv?js a.KOvGa$ y n.r.X. The Revisers do not make here 
their pet emendation : " Now John, when he heard . . . 
sent;" as see xii. 2, 43 ; Mark vi. 16, etc., etc. It may as 
well be " had heard" as " heard," see iv. 2 ; with " hear," . 
"sec," etc., either form may be used. The roZXpiGTOv 
here is taken not from John's point of view, but from the 
evangelist's when he wrote, and may as properly be ren- 
dered "Christ" as ''the Christ;" and even if taken from 
John's point of view, " the Christ" would beg the question 
about which John asked. 



ST. MATTHEW. 27 

3. " He that cometh" for " he that should come" = 6 
spXOjusvos — "he that is to come," or " that shall come " 
They have rendered it "is to come" at Rev. i. 4, 8, and iv. 
S, etc. ; and in like manner they have rendered roc ipxo- 
jaeva. 

4. 7. "Go your way" for "go;" "went their way" for 
" departed" (7topsvGj). But see xxviii. 19. 

5. " The blind," etc. Article inserted six times with A. 
V. — not "blind men," etc. ; and so, often ; and so, right. 
This is our idiom. See xxi. 14. 

6. " Shall find no occasion of stumbling in" = 
GnavdaXia^)} iv. Elsewhere they are more brief, and ren- 
der : " be stumbled," " stumble," " be offended." See xiii. 
21,57, etc. 

7. "To behold," for " to see" = SeaGa6$ai. But see 
vi. 1; xxiii. 5 ; Mark xvi. 14; John vi. 5; Acts xxi. 27; 
Rom. xv. 24, etc. The idsiv which follows in the next verse 
shows that this has the same meaning ; see xiii. 17. 

12. "Men of violence," for "the violent" = fSiaarai. 
Why did not they say at verse 5 "blind men" for "the 
blind," to show their reverence for the Greek article, or 
rather, for its absence ? See also verse 25. 

14. " Which is to come" for " which was for to come" = 
o jizWcDV i'pxsoSai. But see John xii. 4 ; Acts xxvi. 22 ; 
Rom. v. 14 ; Heb. ii. 5 ; vi. 5 ; ix. 11 ; x. 1 . In Hebrews it is 
translated "to come" — not "which is to come;" and it 
probably means "which was to come," i.e., "which was 
predicted and expected." 

16. " In the market places" for "in the markets" = iv 
ayopoas. No article. 

19. " Is justified" — aorist in Greek. 

25. " Of heaven and earth." Both with article in Greek. 
Cf. Acts iv. 24. 

25, 26. Aorist rendered preterite for perfect. (?) 

27. Aorist rendered perfect. See John xvii. 2. " Will- 
eth" — not " desireth" = f3ov\rjrai. See Mark xv. 15; 
Acts xxii. 30; xxiii. 28; xxv. 22; xxvii. 43, etc. Compare 
John xviii. 39. 



28 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 



XII. 

2. " But the Pharisees, when they" for "but when the 
Pharisees, they." But see verse 24, where the Revisers re- 
verse their construction, with the same Pharisees and the 
same Greek construction ! See also xi. 2 ; ix. 12. 

12. " How much is a man of more value" for "how 
much is a man better." If they must change, suppose they 
had said, " Of how much more value" ? 

"To do good" for "to do well" = xaXdoS 7toieiv x not 
even na\ov noie.iv. Which is the more faithful ? See 2 
Thess. iii. 13 ; Acts x. 33 ; 1 Cor. vii. 37, 38 ; 2 Cor. xi. 4, 
etc. 

so. " Judgement" = ri)v upi6iv : so A. V. 

zi. " The Gentiles" = e'Svtj : so also A. V. 

24. "The prince" = apxovri. Why not "prince" or 
" a prince" ? See Mark iii. 17, etc. 

27, 28. Article omitted twice — ra daijiovia. 

33. " The tree is known by its fruit;" but see the cor- 
rection of A. V. at Matt. vii. 16. 

40. Note how the order of time and place in the' Greek is 
inverted in the English. 

"The belly of the whale" for " the whale's belly"! 
When we compare this and v. 34 with 2 Tim. ii. 24, I am 
almost tempted to infer that the learned Revisers supposed 
" the whale's belly" might mean "a belly of the whale." 
But how many bellies had the whale? 

42. "The queen of the south." No articles in Greek. 
But see 2 Tim. ii. 24 again. 

43. "The unclean spirit, when he" for " when the un- 
clean spirit . . . he." But this is departing from the struct- 
ure of the Greek ; and the ambiguity which they would re- 
move is as much in the Greek as in the English of the A. V. 
This change of construction therefore is as much required 
in our Lord's own words (if he used the Greek) as in the 
English. And what has become of their painful faithful- 
ness to the exact text ? See xxi. 38, etc., etc., etc. Here 
they assume and translate a text for which there is not the 
slightest authority. Besides, they might have reached their 



ST. MATTHEW. 29 

purpose by substituting, from the margin, " it " for " he," 
referring to the demon. 

46. " His" for the article only, twice. 

XIII. 

2. "Beach" for "shore." How necessary . 

3. "The sower" for " a sower 1 ' = 6 07teipoov. But why- 
change ? Does 6 GrtBipoov here mean any definite particu- 
lar sower? Does it not mean indifferently " the sower" or 
" a sower," i.e., " he that" or " one that sows" ? See John 
v. 45 ; and viii. 50, " one that seeketh" = 6 2,r}TGov : and 
Mark iv. 26, "casts seed," tor 6nopov : — the generic ar- 
ticle. 

17. Preterites for perfects (?). 

" To see" = idelv: " see" = (SXtTtere. Cf. xi. 7, 8. 

18. " Hear then ye" for " hear ye therefore" (?). 
24. " Is likened" = gdjuoigqSt/. 

27. *' Didst thou not" for " didst not thou" (?). 

28. " Hath done" (aorist) ; why not " did" ? 

(No marginal note.) " Wilt thou" — not " desirest thou." 
But see Matt. xxvi. 15. 

30. " Time" = Kcapoi). 

34. " Without" = jG?p/s. 

" In parables unto the multitudes" for " unto the multi- 
tude in parables." " Parables" here is the emphatic word, 
and the A. V. is the natural English. 

36. " Left" for " sent away" = acpsfc (?). 

39. Why not " the angels" as well as "the end" ? Both 
are predicates, and both without the article. 

44. "In" = «7ro— "of," "from," or "for;"— why "in"? 

46. " Sold" = 7T67tpaK8 — perfect co-ordinated with aorists, 
and all here rendered preterite. But see i. 22, yeyovsv. 

48. Order changed; see xxi. 12, etc., for the Greek 
order. 

50. " Furnace of fire," rov rtvpc?. Also, as at verse 42^ 
"the weeping" (6), and "of teeth" (tgdv). 

57. " Were offended" = 86Kavda\i£,oi*TO. But see xi. 6. 

58. "Unbelief" =a7twriav-~ not "disbelief." But see 
Mark xvi. 16. 



3° 



NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 



XIV. 



I. " Report concerning Jesus" for "fame of Jesus" = 
auovrjv b](Jov(?). "Is risen" = rfyip^r/ — not "is raised" 
or " was raised." But see Mark xiv. 28 ; John ii. 22 ; Matt, 
xxvi. 32; Rom. viii. 34, etc. "These powers" =ai Svva- 
M eis (?). 

9. "Was grieved" for "was sorry" = iXv7t7]^ij. But 
see xvii. 23; xviii. 31; xix. 22; xxvi, 22,37; Mark x. 22 
("sorrowful" for " grieved" !) ; xiv. 19; John xvi. 20; 2 
Cor. ii. 2, 4, etc. ■ 

14. "Had compassion on" for " was moved with com- 
passion towards" = eg nXayxy 16^11 . So xv. 32. But see 
xviii. 27 ; xx. 34. In this last case they put " moved with 
compassion" for "had compassion" ! 

16. " They have no need to go away" for " they need 
not depart" = ov xpziav i'xovaiv aneXSezv. Had they 
need or did they need to make this change ? As for " de- 

'part" it is true the Greek word is rendered just before 
" go ;" and the same is true of their "go away." The Re- 
visers not unfrequcntly render aTreX^elv "depart," as at 
Acts xvi. 40. 

17. Note that here ovk . ... si }j.rj means " but" — 
" only;" while at xv. 24 it means " not .... but:" — 
English idiom. 

22. "To enter into" for " to get into" (a boat) = e/ifijjvai 
(not e-atX^eiv). (?) 

27.. "After he had sent" for "when," etc. = anoXvaai. 
Why not " sending," as at ii. 11 ? 

24. "Distressed" for " tossed" = ftcxacxvi8,o^iF.vov — of 
the boat, by the waves. (?) 

25. "Upon" for "on ;'' and so at 28, 29. Why? How 
vastly important, and intensely necessary ! ' 

29. " Went down and walked" for " when lie was come 
down he walked." But see " when he saw" in the next 
verse, also for an aorist participle. Should the reader be 
led to suppose the Greek construction different in the two 
cases ? Do the Revisers study variety of expression ? But 
see "straightway," etc. By the way they have, in the 



ST. MATTHEW. 31 

next verse, inadvertently left " immediately" (instead of 
"straightway," their archaic pet) for svSegoz, as also at 
xxiv. 29. So difficult is it to hold split hairs steadily in view, 
or, perhaps, they have split the hair a second time. 
33. " The Son of God ;" compare xxiii. 31. 

XV. 

5. "That wherewith thou mightest have been profited 
by me is given to God " for " It is a gift, by whatsoever thou 
mightest be profited by me" = Aoopov, o iav ££, eyiov 
GQcpe\T?$7~p. " To God" is not translation, but paraphrase 
or exposition. Compare this with their painstaking faith- 
fulness in adhering to the Greek order and emphasis in 
other cases. The A. V. is here by far the more faithful to 
the original, and gives- the same sense as their version, and 
that as clearly as the Greek gives it ; and, moreover, has 
retained the right grammatical tense for GjrpeXr/S-fjs. See, 
by analogy, Luke xvi. 30, 31. 

9. " The precepts" for " the commandments" = evraX- 
jxocta. While they were making their correction they 
might as well have made it accurate and said, " precepts" 
or " injunctions." 

12. " Were offended" — not " stumbled," and that though 
their rendering here might stumble the reader — quite as 
naturally as in any of the passages where they have intro- 
duced the other translation. 

14. " If the blind guide the blind" — "guide" for "lead"? 
And nothing to distinguish the singular number. There is 
no article m the Greek, but it is literally "if blind lead 
blind" or "if a blind man lead a blind man." For do we 
not naturally speak of a blind man's being "led," rather 
than "guided" ? 

" A pit" for " the ditch" (no article) ; but is not the A. V. 
the true sense in current English ? Just before the Re- 
visers say, " is cast into the draught," although " draught" 
has no article in the Greek. 

32. " Would" for " will." Is this necessary, and is it ex- 
actly the sense? He refers to what he wills, not to what he 
would. He is resolved upon what he will and will not do. 



32 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION 

33. " In a desert place" for "in the wilderness" = iv 
£pr)}.d(y. But the article is familiarly supplied in such 
cases after iv ; and see 2 Cor. xi. 26. 

XVI. 

1. " From heaven" == £ n rod ovpavou — not "out of the 
heaven," as elsewhere. 

2, 3. '' The heaven" for "the sky"— 6 ovpavoi. 

5. " Forgot" for " had forgotten." But it must be " had 
forgotten" with any construction ; the forgetting must be 
antecedent to their coming to the other side, and so the 
Greek implies. If we must change the A. V., would it not 
be better to say, "And being come to the other side, the 
disciples had forgotten," etc.; i.e., they then found it out ? 

7. " Perceiving" = yvovS. 

8, 11. " Perceive" for " understand" —voeire (?). 
19. "On earth," "in heaven" — article in Greek. 

29. "In no wise" for " not" = ov jxtf. But see xxiii. 
39; xxiv. 35, etc., etc. 

24, 25. " Would" for " will" = Se\ei = wills to. The 
simple future after " if " would be "shall," never "will." 
There could therefore be no ambiguity. But see xxiii. 4. 

27. " To every man" = euaaray. Elsewhere they often 
change " every" to " each," making questionable English. 

XVII. 

5. " My beloved Son" = vio$ fiov 6 aya7rr/r6z — not 
" a son of mine, even the (or my) beloved." But see xxv. 
40; Luke ix. 35; Mark v. 15; 1 Cor. xv. 38; Rev. iii. 2; 
Gal. ii. 20. 

8. " Lifting up" for " when they had lifted up" = ina- 
pavTEi. See xiv. 23 ; Acts xxi 2, 4; cf. Acts i. 9. 

"No one" for " no man;" and so, often. But in the 
next verse they say " no man." Does ovSsls mean "no 
one" and fxrjSeU " no man"? Or did they fear an infer- 
ence as to Christ's humanity? 

13, 25. How necessary to faithfulness are these changes 
in the order of the words ! 

26. "Therefore the sons are free" for " then are the chil- 



ST. MATTHEW. 33 

dren free" = apays iXevS'spoi eiaiv 01 viol. " Sons'' may 
be more accurate than children ; but why " therefore" for 
"then" ? As to arrangement, the A. V. is clearly nearer 
the order and emphasis of the original. 

27. "Lest" = i'va fxr} — not "that not." But see John 
xii. 35 ; Col. ii. 4 ; iii. 21 ; Phil. ii. 27, etc. 

" Cause to stumble," and so xviii. 6. But see xv. 12. 
"Stumble" is ambiguous as well as "offend." 

XVIII. 

3. " Turn" for " be converted" = arpacpr/Te. (?) ' ' Little 
children'' ==ra naidia. Article? 

7, 8, 9. " Occasions," etc. = tgqv GnavSaXaov : " the oc- 
casions," etc. = ra auavSaXa: "life" = rr/v 8,gdt)v. 
"The eternal fire" — (not "the fire which is," or " even 
that which is") = to nvp to aiaoviov : " the hell of fire" 
(not " the hell of the fire") — tov nvpos. 

12. "Which goeth astray," for " which is gone astray ;" 
present participle =" which is straying," or " is gone 
astray." 

16. "Two witnesses or three," for " two or three wit- 
nesses." Is not this a piece of hypercriticism ? The A. V. 
gives the usual English phrase. See Heb. x. 28 and 2 Cor. 
xiii. 1; and "the kingdom of heaven." See also Deut. 
xvii. 6 and xix. 15. 

18, 19. " On earth" (thrice), — TrfZ : "in heaven" (twice), 
— t&> : "in heaven' * = ev ovpavoiS. See also xvi. 19; 
but compare xxiii. 9. 

20. " In my name," Gr. eis. — Note and cf. xxviii. 19. 

32. "Called" for "after that he had called." But see 
xiv. 23. Either way is well enough; but why change, and 
that, first one way and then another ? 

XIX. 

1. "Beyond Jordan," tov; and so at John i. 28; iii. 
26 ; but, Matt. iii. 13, they say " to the Jordan," and Mark 
i. 9, "in the Jordan." The established English usage has 
Jordan without the article (in the Palestinian point of view), 
even in the nominative case; see Joshua iii. 15, " Jordan 



34 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

overfloweth." If this is an archaism it is no more unintel- 
ligible or ambiguous now than is "which" for "who," or 
"or" for " ere," or " howbeit," or " straightway." 

5. "His father and mother" for " father and mother. " 
The A. V. is literal and plain. In the Greek there is no 
article. 

11. "All men . . . not" = ov 7ravrsi,= " not all men/' 
Cf. 1 Cor. vi. 12, and x. 23. 

20. "Have observed" for "have kept" = ecpv\a^a- 

}AT}V. (?) 

22. "Was one that had" for " had"= rjv i'xoov. But 
see vii. 29 ; Mark i. 22, etc. 

23. "It is hard for a rich man to enter" for " a rich 
man shall hardly enter." Here the A. V. is exactly literal 
with tense, adverb and all. 

24. What is the difference, to a simple reader, between 
<: a needle's eye" and "the eye of a needle"? Do the Re- 
visers suppose that "a needle's eye" means "an eye of a 
needle," i.e., "one of the eyes of a needle"? And do they 
intend to insinuate this meaning ? A needle is ordinarily 
cycloptic, or, at the least, monoptic. But ah ! the Greek 
article! Or must St. Matthew be conformed to St. Luke? 

25. " Astonished exceedingly" for " exceedingly amazed ;" 
— consequential. 

26. "Looking upon them said" for "beheld them and 
said" = €/A/3\upaS ei7tev. But see vii. 3 and xxvi. 27. 

27. " Lo" for " behold" = idov. But see i. 20, 23 ; ii. 1, 
9 ; x. 16 ; xx. 18, 30, etc., etc. What hair is split here? 

"Then" for " therefore" = apa. But see at xvii. 26 
" therefore" for " then" = a pays. What hair is split again 
here ? 

30. The Revisers show here that the sense can be con- 
veyed in English without inserting the article ; and their 
manipulation is skilful. But what is gained, by their 
change, in faithfulness to the Word of God? See x. 2. 

XX. 

1. " That ./*" should be " that was." So the American 
Revisers. 



ST. MATTHEW. 35 

7. " Hath hired" = ifxia^fooaaro. 10. " Would receive" 
= Xr/fitpovrai. 

17. "As Jesus was going up" for " Jesus going up"= 
6 IrjGovZ arafiaivoov. Which is the more faithful ? and 
what of participial constructions ? 

19. " Shall be raised up" for " shall rise again." In the 
Revisers' text iyepSr/Gerai is put for ava^rr/fferai. But 
see xiv. 2 ; xxvii. 63, 64 ; xxviii. 6 ; Mark xvi. 6 ; etc. 

21. "What wouldst thou?" for " what wilt thou?" i.e., 
" what wilt thou have?" = ri SeXeiS ; (?) 

23. " It is for" for " // shall be given to." The latter inser- 
tion keeps up the connection, and is as true as the other. 
''Hath been prepared" for "is prepared." But see ye- 
ypcc7tTai. 

25. "Their great ones" for "they that are great" = 01 
jusyaXoz. At Mark x. 42, "their great ones" = 01 /zeyaXoi 
avr&v (so also A. V.). But is not a pronoun as impor- 
tant as an article ? What has become of their zeal for infin- 
itesimal exactitude in conforming, to every particle of the 
text, in bringing out the slightest diiferences in different 
passages, and particularly in their new text? See "a 
needle's eye," " the belly of the whale," " two witnesses or 
three ;" see also xix. 30 ; and their contortions to keep the 
article out, and yet to get it in, at Gal. ii. 20, etc., etc. If 
the A. V. had given the same rendering here as in St. Mark, 
although there was no cwtgov in the text, or if, the ocvtgov 
being in the text, they had translated as they did, the Re- 
visers would have shown no more than a reasonable breadth 
of the critical mind in leaving the translation unchanged. 
But the change they have made only combines pettiness 
with inconsistency. We beg pardon for speaking plainly. 
If we are asked why make so much ado about a trifling 
oversight ? we answer that, if an oversight, it is an over- 
sight in making a petty correction ; and what we most 
object to all along is precisely the pettiness of the greater 
part of the corrections the Revisers have indulged in. 

26. " Not so shall it be among you" for " it shall not be 
so among you" = ovx ovtgdS effrat iv vjxiv. But Cf. ix. 
13 ; viii. 16, 25 ; xii. 33 ; xv. 5 ; xxi. 12, 33 ; xxiii. 1, 2, 3, 



$6 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

etc. And why not say " not. all" (ov navrs^) at xix. n, 
and be logically as well as literally correct ? 

27. " Would" for " will." The simple future would be 
" shall." There is no ambiguity therefore in the A. V. 

XXI. 

5. " Riding" =67rifie/3rjHGDZ. Did they see the perfect, 
or did they render by consequence? "The foal of an 
ass" = viov vrtoByVyiov. Why not " a foal of an ass," or 
at least, " an ass's foal" ? 

8. " Cut and spread." These are imperfects; why not, 
"went on cutting and spreading" ? 

10. "The prophet, Jesus, from Nazareth" for "Jesus, 
the prophet of Nazareth." f ano N. = " who is," or, in 
the most approved style, "even he that is." How hap- 
pened they to forget this ? 

12. Why did not the Revisers say, "And the tables of 
the money changers he overturned," and thus imitate the 
change of order in the Greek, as at xiii. 48 ; a change which 
may contain some latent emphasis or, perchance, some 
mystery ? 

16. "Did you never read" for "have ye never read." 
But see xii. 3, 5; xix. 4 ; xxii. 31 ; etc. — where ovk instead 
of ovdknore : but what of it? Does the latter require the 
tense to be altered here ? See also v. 21, 27, etc., etc. 

23, 24. Why didn't they say : " In what authority ?" — in- 
stead of " by" = eV, as elsewhere ? 

28, 41. "The vineyard" for "my vineyard;" because 
the jjlov has fallen out of their text. But they find the 
article enough for the possessive pronoun in numberless 
instances; see verse 31, John xix. 30, etc., etc., and com- 
pare xx. 25, 

^t,. Why not, "another parable hear ye" ? See xx. 26; 
xxiv. 32, etc. 

38. "But the husbandmen, when they saw, said" for 
"but when, etc., they said." But see ix. 12 ; xi. 2. 

" Let us take." But their text is changed to (?x&>M €v = 
" let us have* ' or " hold' ' — not seize or take = Karaaxoo^ev. 

41. " Miserable" for " wicked" = hochovs. (?) 



ST. MATTHEW. 37 

42. " The head of the corner. " Noarticles. Cf. xxiii. 15. 
44. "Scatter as dust" for "grind to powder" =\iH/*r/- 
aei. (?) Observe it is done by a falling stone. 

XXII. 

2. "Is likened" = <hpioiGD$r}. 3. Why not "bid the 
bidden" or "call the called" ? See Acts xxvi. 24, 25. 

4. " Made ready" for " prepared." See " ready" imme- 
diately afterwards. 

6. "Entreated shamefully" for ". . . spitefully = 
vfipiffav. No shame in the word, but wanton violence and 
outrage. Cf. Mark xii. 4; Luke xx. 11, where "shame- 
fully" is right. 

11. "To behold (for see) the guests" = SeocGaoSai. 
But see vi. 1; xxiii. 5; Markxvi. 14; Acts viii. 18, etc. So 
this strange English is not enforced by the Greek. 

13. "Hand and foot" = ncSas xai x £ ^P aZ -> "feet and 
hands;" but see " the footstool of his feet," and the "two 
witnesses and three," etc. 

21. Why not say "the things that are Caesar's to 
Cassar, and the things that are God's to God" and thus 
continue "faithful" to the Greek ? See Mark v. 15. 

34. " But the Pharisees, when they heard . . . gathered," 
for "but when the Pharisees heard, they were," etc. See 
xii. 2, 24. 

36. "The great" = jxeyak r) : 38, "the great" = rj 
fxeyaXtj. Both are predicates. 

39. "A second" for "the second" (also in margin). 
But see Mark xii. 31, "the second," alike in both cases, no 
article. 

40. " The whole law" for "all the law" = 0X0? 6 vojuos- 
But why not, then, say, at verse 37, " thy whole heart," 
"thy whole soul," etc. ; and see Matt. iv. 23, 24 ; ix. 26, 31, 
etc. ; also Acts ii. 2, " all the house ;" x. 22, "all the nation ;" 
xi. 28, "all the world" (with A. V. ) ; and compare Matt, 
xxiv. 14, "the whole world" (with A. V.). Why, then, 
must faithfulness make a change here ? 

42. Tov Aafiid. The rov here belongs to dafiid in the 



38 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

genitive. So, probably, the rov before the list of names 
in St. Luke's genealogy of Christ, Luke iii. 23-36; and, if 
so, "the son" there, (both words), should be printed in 
italics (as being inserted), after the A. V. 

43. " In the Spirit" = sv 7tv8v/xart. So, then, it seems 
the absence of the article rather than its presence shows 
7rv6vjua to be the Holy Spirit. Compare Matt. v. 3. 

XXIII. 

4. "They will not move them" = oi) SeXovgi. Here 
there might be ambiguity; but see xvi. 24; xxvi. 15. 

9. "On the earth;" but see xvi. 19; xviii. 18, etc. 
The change proposed in this verse by the American Re- 
visers is well enough in itself, but unnecessary. See John 
viii. 53. 

13. If this repetition of "enter in" is required by faith- 
fulness, then they should have "bid" "the bidden" to the 
marriage. Besides, they were bound to complete their im- 
provement here by rendering, " for ye enter not in your- 
selves, neither suffer ye them that are entering in to enter 
(in)." They themselves render eiffeXSsiv, "come under," 
Matt. viii. 8 and Luke vii. 6; "come into," Matt. xvii. 25; 
and " go in" or " went in," John x. 9, — here it is "enter 
in" and "go in" in immediate succession — , Acts i. 21 ; x. 
27; xi. 3 ; xvii. 2 ; Mark xv. 43 ; Luke xi. 37 ; xv. 28; xxiv. 
29; Matt. xxv. 10. And Liddell and Scott define it "to go 
or come in." Yet in some twenty or thirty cases they have 
changed "go in" to "enter in," with no more necessity 
than here, or in the passages just referred to. 

15. "A son" for "the child." 31. "Sons" for "the 
children." Predicates or in apposition. See xiv. 33 ; xxiv. 8. 

22. " The heaven" for "heaven ;" and then, verse 23, the 
article omitted three times and three times. See verse 24, 
where " strain out" is right; but "the" is no more required 
with "gnat" and "camel" than with "mint, anise, and 
cummin," in verse 23. 

39. Ob }JLr}= simply "not;" and so Mark xiii. 3 ; Matt, 
xxiv. 35 ; xxvi. 29, etc., etc. But see Matt. xvi. 28. 



ST. MATTHEW. 39 



XXIV. 



9. "All the nations" for "all nations" — and so, often. 
But what is the faithful difference in the sense ? 

13. "To the end" = eis Ttkoi. 

15. " When therefore ye see" for " when ye therefore shall 
see" = otolv ovv idtfTe. But see, for "shall," Mark xiii. 
7 ; Luke xvii. 10, etc. ; and for " therefore," Matt. xxv. 28. 

22. " Except those days had been shortened no flesh would 
have been saved;" but they " shall be shortened." This, in 
English, is incongruous. Is it required by the Greek ? Is 
not the rule that enjoins it contradicted by this fact of the 
language ? See xxvi. 24. In St. Mark the construction of 
the parallel passage is consistent, being framed throughout 
from the prophetic or predestinate point of view. 

27, 37. Is the change of order necessary to faithfulness, 
or was it to improve the English expression ? 

29. " Stars shall fall from heaven," sx rov ovp. "Pow- 
ers of the heavens," tgov ovp.: 30. " Sign in heaven," 
iv Top ovp.: " Clouds of heaven," rov ovpavov : 31. "End 
of heaven," ovpavoov : 36. " Angels of heaven," tgov 
ovpavoov ; 35. " Heaven and earth," 6 ovp. and 77 yi). 
See Acts iv. 24. 

32, " Now from the fig-tree learn her parable." Greek 
order, but see xx. 26; xxi. 33. No pronoun for "her," but 
see xxi. 28, 41. 

42. This = exeivo ; and so A. V. 

XXV. 

18. " Digged in the earth" = Gopvi;e y?jv. 

20, 22. "Lo" for " behold" = ids. But see 65; Mark 
ii. 24; xi. 21, etc., etc. "He that received" for "he that 
had received" = o Xa/3aDV. Cf. John xiii. 26 ; Heb. xi. 17. 

21,23. "Hast been" = r/S. Why not "wast"? But 
who can exactly measure the depths of faithfulness ? 

24. "He that had received" =0 eiXr/cpGoS. But it is 
manifestly co-ordinated with 6 Xafioov. 

25, 27. " Thine own" for " that is thine" = to gov, not 
to idiov. 



4-0 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

26. " Wicked" = novrjpe, not " evil," and so Luke xix. 
22. But see Matt. xii. 45 ; xvi. 4; Luke xi. 26 ; Col. i. 21 ; 
2 Thess. iii. 2, etc., etc. 

28. ''Take ye away, therefore, from" for " take there- 
fore from" = apars ovv ano. The "ye" is not expressed 
in the Greek ; and see xxiv. 15. 

37. "Athirst" for " thirsty" = SiipGovra. This pains- 
taking emendation seems to have been made because (with 
A. V.) the Revisers have " athirst" at verse 44. But why 
stop at this? If SiipGovra must be "athirst," how should 
edtyrjffa remain " I was thirsty"? Their shortest way would 
have been, if they must correct so flagrant a piece of un- 
faithfulness in the A. V., to put "thirsty" for "athirst" 
at verse 44, and then all would have been harmonious. 

40. " One of these my brethren, even of these least' ' for 
"one of the least of these my brethren" = evi rovroov 
tgqv aSe\q)Gbv jj.ov tgqv eXaxiGraov. But the second 
"these" is not in the Greek. See the "daily bread" of 
the Lord's Prayer, for the construction. 

XXVI. 

2. "Cometh" for "is" = yiverai : 5. "arise" for 
" be" = yivrjrca ; 54, "be" = yevia^ai. 

7. "Exceeding precious" for "very precious" = 
j3apvripiov: — exceeding faithful ! 

9. "The poor" = 7trooxoiS (no art.). Why not say, at 
verse it, " For the poor ye have always with you, but me ye 
have not always ;' ' thus taking advantage of the Greek initial 
and of the English final emphasis? But compare John xii. 8. 
If they must change there, why not also here? 

12. " Did" = E7roLt]G£ : 13. "Hath done" = in oly &s. 
Note a painstaking reconstruction, and all to secure the 
presumed logical place for " also." 

15. " Are ye willing to" for "will ye" = SeXers ; but 
see xxiii. 4; Acts xxv. 9. 

15. "Weighed" = e'fJT^ffav: — a possible but at least a 
doubtful sense here. 

17. " Of unleavened bread" for " of the feast of unleav- 
ened bread" = tgjv ocZv/agov. Faithfulness to the sense ? 



ST. MATTHEW. 41 

To the syllables? But what has become of the article? 
" Make ready" for "prepare." (?) 

18. "Time" = HaipoZ. 

19. "Appointed" for " had appointed" = evvtragev. 
But " had appointed" expresses in the English the strict 
relation of the time. See xxviii. 16; Luke xxiv. 24. 

21. il Betray" =7tapaSoj(X£i : but, at 16, "deliver" = 
napadcp is substituted for "betray," as ''deliver'' had been 
used just before. Why not make the change there as well 
as here ? Must the A. V. be altered ? Besides, the Revi- 
sers are not afraid of verbal repetitions. Rather they are 
bound to make them after the Greek. See 1 Cor. xv. 28, 
etc. 

24. " Good were it for that man if he had not been born" 
for "it had been good," etc. But see xxiv. 22. Surely if 
ifv conditioned by si with an aorist indicative can mean 
" were" (= " would be,") eGGoSr] with av, and conditioned 
in like manner, can mean "would be saved" instead of 
"would have been saved." It would really seem as if the 
A. V. must be corrected, render as it may. If it renders 
"had been," then "were" or " would be;" if it renders 
"would be," then "would have been" or "had been." 
But see John xv. 22, 24, where they follow the A. V. 

25. "Is it I, Rabbi?" for "Master, is it I?" But see 
"Save, Lord," viii. 25. " Hast said" = etnas. 

26. 27. " He" inserted before "gave" in 26 but not in 27. 
" A cup" for "the cup." Their text omits the article. But 
is any article needed in the Greek phrase ? See verses 74 
and 75. 

2S. "Is shed," not "is being shed." Cf. Acts ii. 47 and 
2 Cor. ii. 15, etc. "Unto remission of sins" for " For the 
remission of sins" — eis occpeaiv aju. But at Luke i. 77, 
they render iv dcpiaei " in the remission;" and see verse 
45, " unto the hands" = eis jf/pa's. 

37. " Sore troubled" for " very heavy" = adrj/iorsiv. (?) 
43. " Heavy" = /3s/3ap^juEvoi = " weighed down." 
44 and 42. "A second time," "a third" for "the" etc. 
O faithfulness ! How many second and third times were 
there? But see Mark xiv. 72 and Acts x. 15. 



42 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

45. " Unto" for " into" = £zV. (?) And how important! 

50. ''Laid hands," ras xefpas : but at 45 "unto the 
hands," x £ ?P a > •' an d at verse 51 " his hand," rrjv ^eXpa. 
Why not say here "their hands" and be exact and consist- 
ent — and correct the A. V. at the same time ? 

52. "With" = ev: and "the" is inserted twice with 
" sword.' ' 

56. " Is come to pass." Misleading? 

64 and 39. "Nevertheless" = 7tX?jv. This particle seems 
to have been a special exercise to the faithful and conse- 
quential ingenuity of the Revisers. It is used in the N. T. 
about thirty times, and they have corrected the A. V. fifteen 
times. In Matt. xi. 22, 24 ; Luke x. 14 ; xi. 41 ; xii. 31 ; xix. 
27, and Rev. ii. 25, they put " howbeit' ' for " but ;" in Luke 
x. n, 20, and Phil. iv. 14, they put "howbeit" for '^not- 
withstanding;" in Luke xiii. 33, xviii. 8, and 1 Cor. xi. 11, 
they put " howbeit" for " nevertheless ;" in Phil. i. 18; iii. 
16, they put " only" for " nevertheless ;" in Luke xxii. 42 ; 
Eph. v. 33, as here in Matt. xxvi. 39, 64, they have suffered 
"nevertheless" to remain. In Matt. xi. 22, 24, where they 
put "howbeit" for " but," the phrase in the Greek is the 
very same as here, where the "nevertheless" is retained, 
viz., nXr/v key go vfj.iv. Now, as far as the sense is con- 
cerned, it could make no real difference whether " but" or 
"howbeit," or " notwithstanding," or "nevertheless" were 
used — "nevertheless" is one of the most clumsy — ; and if 
they had used the simple "but" (or "yet," or "and yet") 
in all cases it might have been well. But they seem to 
have had a special fancy for the antiquated "howbeit," 
which the A. V. has never used as the translation of 7t\i)v: 
and — for consistency's sake and consequential faithfulness 
— have retained all the others in different places, except 
" notwithstanding." Where they put " only' ' for " neverthe- 
less," " but" would have done as well, or "nevertheless" 
might have been left, as here. 

65. " Hath spoken," "have heard," for aorists. 

74, 75. " The cock crew." No article in the Greek. Why 
did they not say : " a cock crew ;" as, " he took a cup," at 
verse 27 ? 






ST. MATTHEW. 43 



XXVII. 

7. " Strangers" = roTZ givoiS, (article ?) " With them"= 
iB, avToov. 

8. " The field of blood ;" aypoZ. See Acts xvii. 23 and 
Mark iii. 17. 

14. " He gave him no answer, not even to a word" for 
" he answered him to never a word" = ovk anenpi^r} avrcp 
7tp6? ovde ev pr/fia. (?) 

" 15. " At the feast" (marg. " a") = Kara ioprrfv. Why 
not say, " at feast time" — if we must split hairs about arti- 
cles, or may insert anything whatever except only an article ? 
See Gal. ii. 20. 

17. " When therefore" for " therefore when." But which 
is most logical in English ? Do they think to express any 
difference in the sense ? 

18. " Had delivered" = 7tapeSooHav .-19, " have suffered" 
= i'na^ov. 

24. "See ye to it" = oipeaBe = " ye shall see to it/ ' (?) 

26. " Jesus he scourged and delivered" for " when he had 
scourged Jesus, he delivered him" = rov 6h IrjG. cppayeX- 
XcoffaS naphdooKEv. Which has the right air and tone ? 
See verses 50 and 54. 

27. 29. "Kneeled down" for "bowed the knee" = yo- 
vvTterrfGavTeS. " To kneel" is "to bow the knee," or "to 
fall upon the knees." Whence comes the added "down" ? 
It is a curious illustration of punctilious faithfulness and 
consistency in correcting the A. V. that at Matt. xvii. 14 
they put "kneeling" for "kneeling down;" at Mark i. 40 
they retain " kneeled down ;" and at Mark x. 17 they have 
simply " kneeled ;" and all for the same Greek word, y ow- 
ner ego. 

33. " The place of a skull" for " a place," etc. Right, but 
remarkable. No article in Greek. Suppose the A. V. had 
said "the place," what would they have done? It is true 
they have left "the field" at verse 8 ; but see Mark iii. 17. 
43. " Desireth' ' for " will have" = $e. Xei. (?) 
45. "There was" = iyevero. Why not "there came, 
arose, or followed"? See verse 24; Rev. xi. 15, etc. 



44 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

46. "Loud" = /xsyaXtj. But see Rev. v. 2, 12 ; viii. 13; 
xiv. 7, 9, 15 ; where " loud" is faithfully changed to " great." 
" Hast forsaken," aorist. 

49. "Cometh" for " will come." The sense is undoubt- 
edly future though the tense is present. 

52. "Were raised" for " arose" = ^yep^tj. But see 
verses 63 and 64, etc., etc. 

54. Compare the construction with verses 50 and 26. 
"The things that were done" = ra yevojueva— not "the 
things that came to pass." But see xxviii. 11. 

Marg. "A son of God." There seems no occasion for 
this marginal reading. It is not called for by the rule of 
the Greek article ; see verse 43, etc., etc. And as to the cen- 
turion being a heathen, it is not certain that he was not like 
the centurion of Matt. viii. 5-10 and Acts x. ; and it is prob- 
able that he knew about the claims of Jesus from the Jew- 
ish point of view, for most likely he was with Pilate, and 
had heard the charge made by the Jews before Pilate : " We 
have a law and by our law he ought to die, because he made 
himself the Son of God ;" at which words Pilate, who before 
had been startled by the message from his wife, was the 
more afraid. But, finally, if the centurion must be sup- 
posed to speak from the purely heathen point of view, his 
exclamation should be translated, not " a son of God," but 
"the son of a god." The Revisers might suggest, "a son 
of a god," or "a god's son;" but these expressions are 
forced and artificial, and foreign to the English idiom, or, at 
least, very unnatural and unusual. 

63. "We remember," aorist. "I rise again" for "I will 
rise again;" but the sense is undoubtedly future. 

XXVIII. 

1. "To sec" = Seajpi/ffai— not "behold." 4. "Quake" 
for "shake." (?) 

6, 7. "Is risen" = ijyEp^t] — not " was raised." 

9. "Took hold of his feet" for "held him by the feet" 
=eupaTr]G£v avrov rovZ nodaS. Note the proper force 
of the verb. Was this change required? 

14. " Rid you of care" for " secure you." 



ST. MARK. 45 

18. "Came to them and spake unto them" for ''came 
and spake unto them" = 7tpoffs\^GJv i\a\?]6£v avrolS, 
But see iv. 3, where they correct the A. V. by putting 
"came" for " came to him" as a translation of the same 
Greek word in the same construction. 

" Authority" for " power" = i^ovaia\ but at Mark ii. 10 
they render " power." 

" Hath been given" for " is given" = edoSrj. (?) 

19. " Make disciples of all the nations" for "teach all na- 
tions." " All the nations" cannot differ much in sense from 
"all nations;" only in form it brings out more sensibly the 
incongruity with " making disciples." 

" Baptizing into the name," £1? to ovo/ta. But at x. 41. 
they render eis oropia " in the name ;" and see 1 Cor. x. 2. 

20. " Commanded" for " have commanded ;" but see verse 
16, " had appointed" — both for aorists. If an aorist be- 
comes pluperfect after another aorist, why should it not be- 
come perfect after a present tense ? Besides, " commanded" 
would seem to refer to some particular, though indefinite, 
time. Can we suppose our Lord to have had in mind any 
such reference ? We must read from his point of view, and 
not from our present position. Cf . Luke xxiv. 44 ; but the 
limitation of time there expressed is not expressed here, 
and what right have we to presume it to be implied ? See 
Acts i. 2. 

ST. MARK. 
I 

4. Why is "the" retained before " baptism" and omitted 
before " remission" ? Which required the change, faith- 
fulness to the English or to the Greek ? Cf. Luke i. 77 
and Acts ii. 38. And as to the "unto" for "for," the A.V. 
put "unto" in the margin; but "for" is the settled Eng- 
lish use, as see the Nicene Creed ; and compare "the king- 
dom of heaven." 

6. " Had" inserted for " with." The A.V. is literal and 
correct. For the construction of participles with the verb 
"to be," compare xiii. 25, and compare the latter with 
Matt. xxiv. 29. 



46 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

8. " Baptized" for " have baptized;"— but compare verse 
ii, and i Cor. ix. 15 ; Col. iv. 8; Philem. 19, 21, etc., etc. 

11. " Out of the heavens" for ''from heaven" = ex rtiv 
ovpavGov: but compare the Lord's Prayer, and the "king- 
dom of heaven," tgjv ovp-: also John iii. 31 ; 1 Thess. i. 
10; Rev. x. 4, xiv. 13, etc.; where we have "in heaven" 
= ev roiZ ovp. (as commonly elsewhere); and "from 
heaven" = ex tgjv ovp. t " cometh from heaven ;" and "a 
voice from heaven," ex rov ovp. — not " out of heaven." 

35. The participial construction of the A. V. wantonly 
changed. 

37. "Are seeking" for "seek." But why not the same 
change at iii. 32, if faithfulness required it here ? 

II. 

10. " Power" = eB,ovGiav : changed to "authority" 
at iii. 15, and so, generally. But cf. Luke v. 24; xii. 5; 
John x. 18 ; xix. 10, 11 ; Acts v. 4; viii. 19; Rom. xiii. 1, 
2, 3; and particularly Luke xxii. 53; Acts xxvi. iS; 1 
Cor. vii. 37. 

12. " Amazed" = e^iaraa^fai : — but another verb is 
translated "amazed" at i. 27; and this verb is translated 
"is beside himself" at iii. 21. 

17. "A" for "the;" and what's the difference? "The 
righteous" has no article in the Greek. 

26. "Gave also to them," should be, if they will split 
hairs, "gave to them also" — their rule being, apparently, 
to put "also" after the word which in Greek follows the 
uai. 28. " Even" for " also." (?) At iii. 19, OS" xai is ren- 
dered " who also." 

III. 

1,3. " His" is put twice for the article only, unneces- 
sarily. Indeed "a hand" was as near the sense as "his 
hand;" it was one of the man's hands. 

9. " Lest" = iva jai) : — but see Col. iii. 21. 

10. Here the A. V. follows the Greek order; and does it 
not give the sense, and is it not good English? Compare 
the painful transpositions of the Revisers at v. 15, in order 



ST. MARK. 47 

to conform to the Greek construction. And as to "that 
they might touch" for "to touch" = i'va atpcovrai, com- 
pare their own translation at iv. 21, where "to be put" = 
iva reSij ! 

15. " Devils" = roc datjuovia. But see verse 22, and 
"the mountain" at verse 13; and vi. 7. 

17. "Them he surnamed" for "he surnamed them." 
The A. V. follows the order of the Greek. Cf. Rev. viii. 
2. "Sons" for "the sons;" — indifferent, but see Matt, 
xxvii. 34. 

25. "Will not be able" for " cannot"= dwrjaerai : — 
so also at viii. 4. But " cannot" in English is either present 
or future ; and "will not be able" looks as if not only a 
different tense but a different verb were used in the Greek. 
See Luke xvi. 2 ; where "can" is for the future. 

26. " Hath risen up" for " rise up" = clveffrr/. If 
aviarr) must be " hath risen up," then surely e/xspi(T$rf (al- 
though displacing fxe^piarai) should be "hath been di- 
vided." But better say, " is risen up" (or " riseth up"), 
and "is divided." Both forms represent the perfect in 
English. 

IV. 

12. p\knoa = " see," and id gov ==" perceive." 

16. "Are sown," not " are being sown" = ansipofXEvou 
Cf. Acts ii. 47; 2 Cor. ii. 15. And compare " the sower" 
== 6 67teipGQv, verse 14, with " seed" = rov 6nopov, verse 
26 ; and with o Karrjyopdov, o^t/tgdv, and rov Kpivovroc, at 
John v. 45 ; viii. 50 ; xii. 48. With these last compare " There 
shall be the weeping and gnashing," and especially Mark 
i. 7, " there cometh he that is mightier than I." 

19. " Entering in," not "going in" = eiffnopsvoixsvai^ 
not elaepxofxevai : see vii. 15-20. 21. "Is brought" = 

€pX £Tai - 

2-S. Three articles inserted. What prevented their say- 
ing, "first a blade, then an ear, then full corn in the ear" ? 

34. Change of order needless ; see the displacement of 
" he saith unto them," in verse $5. 

37. " Insomuch that" for " so that" = coGTS. But why ? 



48 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

Here is another of the Greek particles which seems to have 
sorely exercised the hypercritical faithfulness of the Revi- 
sers. They have changed its rendering from " therefore" 
to "wherefore" at 1 Cor. iii. 21 ; iv. 5 ; v. 8; xv. 58 ; 2 Cor. 
v. 17, and Phil. iv. 1. But they have admitted that it may 
be translated "therefore" by retaining that rendering at 
Rom. xiii. 2 ; and will they tell us the faithful difference 
in any of these cases between "therefore" and "where- 
fore"? They have changed "wherefore" to "so that," 
at Matt. xix. 6; Rom. vii. 12; Gal. iii. 24 ; iv. 7 ; and to 
" so then" at Phil. ii. 12 ; and " so then" to " so that" at 
Mark x. 8. They have changed "insomuch that" to "so 
that" at Mark ii. 2, but "so that" to "insomuch that" 
at xv. 5 and at Acts xix. 12, retaining " so that" at verses 
10 and t6. But Luther, the Vulgate, and the whole Eng- 
lish Hexapla render gqote in this verse 12 just as they do in 
verses 10 and 16 ; and, with one or two exceptions, they all 
disagree with all the changes here made by the Revisers. 
Now no new lights of Greek grammar or lexicography can 
be appealed to in defence of these changes ; for the same 
Greek word is used throughout and in the same connection, 
i.e., with the indicative mode. All the renderings of the 
A. V. are retained by the Revisers, only they are differently 
distributed, and the most cumbrous and obsolescent — " in- 
somuch that" — is here introduced, and so multiplied. The 
right distribution must be determined by the nature of each 
case, by the context, and the propriety of English expression 
under the circumstances ; and of these particulars any intel- 
ligent English reader may be as good a judge as the ripest 
Greek scholar. To such readers we cheerfully leave the 
judgment. But if any authority must be appealed to on 
these points, we humbly venture to set not only that of the 
translators of 161 i f but that of the Vulgate, of Luther, and 
of the whole English Hexapla, against that of the Revisers. 
It is not a question of Greek scholarship, but of good com- 
mon-sense. This may serve as a sample of the petty, if not 
wanton, changes, whose constant recurrence and vast mul- 
titude constitute our chief ground of complaint against the 
Late Revision. The worst of it is, they undermine our 



ST. MARK. 49 

confidence in the judiciousness of really important altera- 
tions. 

V. 

4. ''Had strength" for " could" = fox vs - So at ix. 
18 and Luke xx. 26, " were not able" for " could ;" and at 
Luke xvi. 3, "have not strength" for "can." The Eng- 
lish reader can judge whether these changes are required for 
the sense ; for, that the Greek word does not require them 
will be seen by referring to Matt. viii. 28 ; xxvi. 40 ; Mark 
xiv. 37 ; and Acts xxv. 7, where they render this verb by 
"could ;" and Phil. iv. 13, where they render it by "can." 

15. "Behold" for " see" = SaoopovGi : and so at verse 
38 and at iii. 11, and often elsewhere. But see Matt, xxviii. 
1 ; John ix. 8 ; etc. " Even him that had" == rov effxyxora. 
For this laborious construction, compare the " daily bread" 
of the Lord's Prayer and Matt. xvii. 5. But rov iaxv Kora 
is rendered "him that had" — not "had had" — in the same 
tense with rov Saijj.ovi£6/j.evov= ii him that was possessed;' ' 
unless the latter is conceived — as indeed it may, if not must, 
be — in the pluperfect tense ; in which case the present par- 
ticiple is rendered as pluperfect, while the perfect parti- 
ciple, in precisely the same construction, is rendered as a 
simple preterite ! Had the man the legion still ? Now rov 
i'xovra, in this connection, as being governed by a preterite 
verb, would mean "him that had ;" shall we put the same 
for rov sexyxora? ln Rom. vi. 7, an aorist participle is 
rendered as a perfect, " he that hath died ;" and here a per- 
fect is rendered as a simple preterite, and that when thrown 
into a time antecedent to the preterite verb that governs it ! 
This passage must evidently have been thoroughly studied, 
as it is so carefully reconstructed. And observe rov dai- 
poviZojAtvov is not rendered "him that was being pos- 
sessed ;" as see Acts ii. 47, etc. For tenses cf. Acts iv. 13. 

19. Aorist and perfect coordinated ; and both should be 
rendered perfect. 

39, 40, 41. Here we have three aorist participles, and each 
followed by the present indicative, — one rendered by " when 
he was entered in," another by " having put them all out," 
and the third by "taking." Why this change of tense? 



50 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

And as for the variety of construction, see "mad," " mad- 
ness," "mad;" "subject," "subjected," "subject;" Acts 
xxvi. 24, 25 ; 1 Cor. xv. 27, 28. 

VI. 

7. An imperfect and an aorist are coordinated, and both 
translated by the preterite. Is this the reason for twice in- 
serting "he" ? Amazing faithfulness ! See verse 13. 

9. "To go" inserted for "be;" but the A. V. is the 
simpler. There is no "go" in the context. 

13. Here all three imperfects are rendered preterites ; and 
"they" is not repeated. 

14. "Had become" for " was" = iytvero* "Is risen" 
= avtari], " These" = at. 

16. " But Herod, when he heard thereof, said," for " But 
when Herod heard thereof he said" = auovcxa? ds 6 
'HpGodrjS i'Xeyev. How important ! But see xv. 39 ; Matt, 
ix. 8, 12, etc. " He is risen" = rjyEp^tf : — not "is raised" 
nor "was raised;" but see xiv. 28; and Matt. xxvi. 32; 
etc., etc. 

17. Pluperfects for aorists right through ; but, 18, " said" 
for "had said." Is not the A. V. right? Common-sense, 
and not the Greek grammar, must decide. 

19. "Set herself against" for "had a quarrel against" 
= ereixzv} " Grudge" might, perhaps, have been better 
than " quarrel." " Desired" for " would have" = ySsXsv. 
But see verses 26 and 48, and Matt. xiv. 5. 

23. "The half." No article in the Greek. This is a 
good illustration of idiom. 

34. For change of construction, see v. 39. " Hath com- 
passion" for " was moved with compassion ;" see Matt. xiv. 
14, note. 

56. "He entered" = siffTtopsvero : imperfect; but see 
vii. 15, "going into" for" entering into." " The country," 
— no article in the Greek nor in the A. V. 

VII. 

7. " The precepts." No article in the Greek, and none 
needed in the English. 



ST. MARK. 51 

11. " Mightest have been" for " mightest be" = GocpsiXr/- 
S-qS : also "given" for " gift" ? See also Matt. xv. 5, and 
note. 

15-20. "Going into" for "entering into;" but see vi. 
56; iv. 19; etc. " Goeth out," but in 15 and 20 "proceed- 
eth out," — all from £H7topevo/*ai. But see " mad, madness, 
mad," Acts xxvi. 24, 25. And see Matt, xxiii. 13. 

VIII. 

1. Change of construction entirely unnecessary ; in 
English, as in Greek, "great" is here of course in the sin- 
gular number, and " having" in the plural, from the nature 
of the case. 

4. " Shall be able" for "can ;" see iii. 24, 25, also Luke 
xvi. 2. "In a desert place" for " in the wilderness;" see 
2 Cor. xi. 26. 

24. " I see men" = rovi av^pco7tov?. 

31. " By" for " of" = vno : but see xiii. 13. 

33. "Turning about" for "when he had turned about" 
= £7ti6tpaq)sU. But at verses 6 and 7 it is " having given 
thanks" for " gave thanks and" = evx<xpi6tr}6a$\ and 
" having blessed" for "blessed and" = evXoyrfGaS: while 
at xiv. 22, 23 it is " when he had blessed" for " blessed and" 
= evXoyr/GaZ, and "when he had given thanks" === evxoc- 
pi6tr]6aS. See xiv. 22, note. 

34,35. "Would" for " will" = $e\ei, SeXrj. Compare 
vi. 19, 26, 48. 

38. For the change of construction, compare iii. 17. 

IX. 

1. "There be some here of them that stand by" for 
" There be some of those standing here." This elaborate 
change is made because the position of code in the text had 
been changed from tgdv c^de to go$6 tgov. But does not 
the insertion of " by" make a bald tautology ? And for the 
place of gd$s note the construction of viii. 4. But ah ! 
revising faithfulness ! Mint, anise, and cummin ! 

13. " Have done" = €7toitj(Tav, coordinated with a per- 
fect ; but it might have been rendered by the preterite, as if 



52 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

contradistinguished from the accompanying perfect, as well 
as any of the aorists in John xvii. ; and before at v. 19. 

17. " I have brought" = rjveyKa. 

18. " Were not able" for " could not ;" — what's the faith- 
ful difference ? But, it may be said, the Greek is uxxvaav 
and not rfdvvarro : then see Luke viii. 43, etc. And see 
verse 28, showing that the meaning of the two verbs is the 
same. 

22. " Hath cast" = i'fiaXe. 

29. " Is dead" = aniSave. For the change of construc- 
tion, compare Matt. xxvi. 26. Could faithfulness require 
the change in one place and not in the other ? and if so, in 
which was the greater faithfulness required ? 

39. " By" = fiV, twice. Why did they not say "in" ? 

33. "When he was in the house" for "being in the 
house" = iv rr) oinia y€vo/uevo$. How is the A. V. to es- 
cape castigation ? If it has the Latin construction, the par- 
ticipial is substituted, see verse 26 and viii. 33 ; — and if it 
has the participial construction, the Latin circumlocution 
must take its place. For rendering the aorist participle 
here as present, see again viii. 33, etc., etc. 

34. Note* that dieXex^r/ffav after yap is rendered by a 
pluperfect; and ja£i£gjv is rendered " the greatest." 

41. " In no wise" for " not" = ov fxr). But see xiv. 31. 

42 "Were" for " is" = eorzV, in the simple direct indic- 
ative. Then, "were hanged" is for an indicative present 
with "if," and "were cast," in the same construction, for 
an indicative perfect. This may all be very well ; but see 
the construction " it is better" in the following verses, with 
the aorist infinitives all rendered present. And then what 
has become of faithfulness to the original ? See verse 1 ; 
xi. 24, etc. 

X. 

1 3. Is there no " ancient authority" for " those who brought 
them" = roiS npoacptpovaiy} The words are retained by 
Tischendorf in his eighth edition. S. and V. omit them. 

15. " In no wise" for " not" = ov fxrf ; unnecessary. — see 
Matt, xxiii. 39; Mark xiii. 2; xiv. 31, etc. 



ST. MARK. 53 

18. "Even* for "that is." Faithfulness to the original ! 
"Save" for "but" = si fJirf: but cf. i Cor. viii. 4; and see 
Luke iv. 26, 27; Rev. ii. 17; Matt. v. 13; xii. 24; xv. 24, 
etc., where they as faithfully put "but" for " save." 

25. " A needle's eye," again, for "the eye of a needle." 
See Matt. xix. 24, note. 

26. " Then who" for " who then." The difference ? 

27. Another change of construction which utterly ruins 
the rhythm. As to the Greek order, see their own construc- 
tion at iii. 17, and Matt. xxii. 21. 

51. " What wilt thou ?" But at verse 36 it is " what would 
ye?" The Revisers, after all, are no more consistent than 
the A. V. 

XI. 

10. Should they not have said "the coming kingdom" 
= 77 epxojuirjj fiaoikeia, and saved the repetition of " the 
kingdom' ' ? There is no article with the Greek noun. 

17. "A house" for "the house;" but it is a predicate, 
and see Matt, xxvii. 33, etc. Was it to be one of the houses 
of prayer for "all the nations" or "the house" of prayer 
for them all ? And as for " all the" for " all ;" — in English 
"all" is idiomatically used for "all the" and "all those." 
If this is antiquated, it is at least as intelligible as " how- 
beit," or " straightway," or as " save" for " but," or " or" 
for " ere," or " which" for " who." 

20. " From the roots." No article in the Greek. 

24. " Have received' ' = eXapere. Why not as well pres- 
ent as perfect, and avoid the apparent nonsense ? See Matt, 
iii. 17. 

32. "Verily" for " indeed" = ovtgoS. (?) "To bea proph- 
et" for " that he was a prophet" = on 7tpoq}rjrr}£ tjv. 

XII. 

1. ".A pit for the winepress" for " a place for the winefat" 
= VTto\i]viov. Now what was dug out was certainly 
"a place for" the apparatus, — whether it were "a pit" or 
not; and it was dug for " the wine-z>tf/," the bottom of the 
apparatus, whether it were for " the wine-/rm" or not. So 
that the A. V. is right, whether the Revisers are or not. 



54 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

But they are so sure of their point that they have represent- 
ed "pit," "press" and all, as being expressed in the Greek 
word. 

10. " Have ye not read?" = aveyvaore $ "the stone," "the 
head," " the corner;" — no articles in Greek. 

1 2. " Spake" for " had spoken." Wrong, and inconsistent ; 
see vi. 17 ; ix. 34 ; and especially John ii. 22 ; iv. 1 ; ix. 35, etc. 

13. " That they might catch him" for "to catch him" = 
i'va, K.r.X. (?) Cf. iv. 21; xv. 15, 20, etc. "In talk." 
Better, "with talk" (dat. inst.) or " in his talk" (A. V.) ; or 
" with their talk" ? 

26. " Are raised" for " rise" = iysipovtai : see vi. 16. 

27. Here the Revisers render "the God" three times 
where there is no article in their text ; — the more wonderful, 
as the article was in the old text. 

33. " His neighbour." Whose neighbour? This is anti- 
quated, and scarcely intelligible. We now say " one's neigh- 
bour," in such cases. 

36. ll Footstool of thy feet" for "thy footstool." This is 
more antiquated than the oldest English. 

38. " Desire to have" is here put for " will have," adding 
the "have" after all ; see Matt, xxvii. 43. 

39. " Chief seats" for "the chief seats." Which is the 
natural idiomatic English ? But ah ! the Greek article ! And 
yet " at feasts" = iv rois, etc. 

43. " Superfluity" for " abundance." Superfluous? 

XIII. 

1. "Behold" for "see = ide. What important distinc- 
tions in meaning this ide must embrace, and how the au- 
thors of the A. V. are to be pitied for their ignorance in not 
perceiving them! At Matt. xxv. 20, 22, " lo" is put for 
"behold" as its translation, and at John xx. 27, " see" is put 
for "behold." 

2. Ov jit) is twice rendered simply " not," and so at verses 
30 and 31 ; but see ix. 41. 

9. " In" = eis : — "in synagogues shall ye be beaten." 
12. "The brother" (A. V.) here expresses the meaning of 
the Greek as exactly as "the father" of the Revisers does. 



ST. MARK. 55 

And what right had they to insert " his" (not italicized) be- 
fore " child," and not before the second " brother" ? So far 
as articles are concerned, surely no faithfulness required 
any change of the A. V. in this passage. 

14. "When ye see" for "when ye shall see" = idrjTS. 
But verse 7, " when ye shall hear" = aKOvorjre. Both 
after orav and with the imperative. 

17. " Woe to them that are with child." Of course the 
ovai cannot be an imprecation here; In some other cases 
it might seem to be ; yet the Revisers have given it the same 
version always. Is this deciding a doubtful sense ? Would 
it not have been true and plainer to have translated this ex- 
pression in all cases by " alas !" " alas for you !' ' " alas for 
them !" etc. — as the A. V. has dQnein the Revelation, where 
the Revisers have substituted " woe" for the " alas" ? 

20. " Would have been" for " should be." This may be 
defended here, standing as if all were past and finished in 
the counsel of God. But in St. Matthew the tense is 
future. 

22. "That they may lead astray" for "to deceive" = 
7tp6$ to a7t07tXarav. 

30. " Be accomplished" for " be done" = yirrftai. See 
the Lord's Prayer. 

34. Why not as well insert u who" as "when"? And 
what great difference after all ? 

XIV. 

5. ' ' They murmured, " for the imperfect. Why not " were 
murmuring" ? See verse 18 and Luke ii. 33. 

6, 8, 9. " Hath wrought" = eipyaaaro. 

10. " That he might deliver him up" for " to betray him' 
= iva 7 k.t.X. (?) Cf. iv. 2i;xv. 15, 20. "He that was;' 
rather " who was" simply, as if 6 = 6 ojv (which they, too 
seem to assume) ; but see their version at xvi. 6 ; Matt, xxiii 
9 ; Rom. ix. 5 ; and in the Lord's Prayer, " which art," etc. 
etc. 

11. For change of construction, compare Matt. ix. 12, 22 
xii. 24, etc. 

12. "Of unleavened " = rdov a^vfjiaov. At verse 1 th^y 



56 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

retain the article, and say "the unleavened." "Make 
ready" for "prepare," and so, at verse 15, "ready" for "pre- 
pared;" but see Luke ii. 31. 

1 8. "Even he that eateth" for " which eateth"= 6 sgSigov: 
and so, verse 20, "he that dippeth" for "that dippeth." 
But, the verbs being in the singular in English, the exact 
sense is secured without these cumbrous insertions. 

22. "Took bread, and, when he had blessed, he brake" 
for " took bread and blessed and brake" = Xa/Scov aprov 
ev^oy/jGai ixXaae. A similar change is made in St. Luke, 
where the Greek construction is the same. But in St. Mat- 
thew the Revisers leave it, "Took bread and blessed and 
brake." Wherefore, then, this change here in St. Mark? Is 
it, perchance, because her^ there is no xai before evXo- 
yrfffaZ? This is making a very nice distinction, which, if 
thrust into such a formula as this, should be faithfully ad- 
hered to elsewhere. But see xv. 1, where, without uai y they 
say "held, and bound, and carried;" while, at Matt, xxvii. 
1, with xai t they say again, "took; and they bound, and 
led" for "took: and, when they had bound, they led." 
Verily, they are hard to please ; or, they find it difficult to 
keep their split hairs steadily in the focus. In 1 Cor. xi. 
23, 24, the construction is different ; the uai there connects 
verbs and not participles. See viii. 33, note. 

"Take ye" for "take" = Xafters. But see xii. t>S, 
where they faithfully put " watch" for " watch ye," because 
there is no v/asiS in the Greek. Do they recognize that 
euphony or rhythm has any rights in a translation ? Then 
they must elsewhere be judged accordingly. 

28. "Raised up" for "risen" = eyep^rjvai. But see 
vi. 16; Matt. xvi. 2 ; xxvii. 64, etc., etc., especially in the 
middle forms. 

30. Here they put " thou' ' just where it stands in their new 
Greek text, whatever may happen to the English. If there 
is so much virtue in the Greek order, why did they not faith- 
fully translate: " Thou, before twice a cock crow, thrice 
shalt deny me"? 

31. " Not"/<7r " not in any wise" = ov pirj. But see ix. 
41 ; xvi. 18, etc., etc. Alas for the poor A. V. ! How it 






ST. MARK. 57 

infallibly blunders, whichever way it turns ! If it says " not 
in any wise," it should be " not;" and if it says " not," it 
should be "in no wise." 

33. " Sore troubled" for " very heavy" = adr/juovsiv. (?) 
Cf. John xi. 33 ; xii. 27. 

36. " Howbeit" for " nevertheless" = aWa : elsewhere 
for 7tXr/v : — better, simply "but" or "yet." 

54. "Had followed" for "followed" == f]KoXov^r)Gev. 
Note that this is direct narrative. Cf. John xviii. 24. 

56, 57. " Bare false witness," twice, for the imperfect. 

64. " Ye have heard" = rfKOvffare. 

6j. "The Nazarene, even Jesus," for "Jesus of Naza- 
reth ;" — harsh and unnecessary ; see " daily bread." 

72. "The second time" = en devrepov. But see "a 
second," " a third," at Matt. xxvi. 42, 44. 

XV. 

4. " Again" is here faithfully transposed into the Greek 
order; but it is (unfaithfully?) left at verse 13 in the Eng- 
lish order, contrary to the Greek. Who can measure the 
unspeakable faithfulness which required the substitution 
of " Pilate again answered him" for " Pilate answered him 
again" ? 

5. " Insomuch that" for " so that ;" see iv. 37, note. 

15. "Wishing" for " willing" = /3ov\6ju6vo$. (?) And 
see a similar change for $£ Xgdv at Acts xxiv. 27. 

19. Imperfects disregarded. But see the pains the Re- 
visers took at Matt. iii. 14. Might they not have succeeded 
with as little circumlocution here ? These imperfects are 
immediately preceded and followed by aorists, and ought 
they not to be distinguished ? See John xvii. ; and see Mark 
xvi. 3 ; Luke i. 22. 

37. " Gave up the ghost" = €^t7rvsv(T€v. At Matt, 
xxvii. 50 they have "yielded up his spirit" for "yielded 
up the ghost" = acprJKSv to nvBVjxa. How can "ghost" 
be got out of e^envsvas, if it is not found in nvsvfxa ? 

40. "Beholding" for "looking on" = ^eaopovdai. (?) 
43. "Of honorable estate" for " honorable" = £ v^x 1 ?' 

}JL0DV. (?) 



58 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

44. They say " were dead" for TeSvfjxs, and " had been 
dead" for antSrave. Note the tenses. 
47. " Was laid" = TtSeirai. 

XVI. 

4. " Exceeding" for "very" = Gcpodpa (not nepiGGGbs). 
Exceeding nice. 

5. "Arrayed" for "clothed" = 7repi/3e/3Xr/pityov : cf. 
Matt. xxv. 35; "robe" for "garment" = ffroXyv. How 
exquisitely faithful ! Cf. John xix. 2, 5. 

11 and 16. "Disbelieve" for "believe not" = aniGrkod. 
But see Rom. iii. 3, where the sense given is merely priva- 
tive ; and Matt. xiii. 58, where aniGriav = not "dis- 
belief," but " unbelief." 

jS. "In no wise" for "not" = ov jxrj. But see xiv. 31. 

ST. LUKE. 
I. 

1. " Have been fulfilled" for " are most surely believed.' ' 
Have not the Revisers here yielded too easily to the au- 
thority of the Vulgate ? And would they not have done 
better to interchange the text and the margin ? Does 
TtXijpoqiopiGi ever thus mean exactly the sai?ie as nXr/pooo} 
They have given the same rendering also at 2 Tim. iv. 5, 
having the old marginal reading to support them. But else- 
where, as at 2 Tim. iv. 17 ; Rom. iv. 21 ; xiv. 5, they have re- 
tained the idea of full assurance — not the mere completion 
of fact, but the complete confirmation of evidence. At Col. 
iv. 12 they have corrected the A. V., putting " fully assured" 
for " complete," the text being changed from nEnXr) poojxiv 01 
to 7rS7tX?jpO(pop}j/utvoi. This verb " to be fully assured of" 
may be compared with the verb "to be entrusted with." 
A person is entrusted with a thing, or the thing is entrusted 
to the person ; so a person is fully assured of a thing, or 
the thing is fully assured to the person, and so is surely 
believed by him. 

13. "Because" for "for;"— why? " supplication" for 
" prayer ;" — consequential. " Is heard" is for an aorist. 



ST. LUKE. 59 

17. Note the omission of the Greek articles here, and 
throughout these prophecies and hymns ; also the use of the 
aorist for the perfect. Yet at verse 19 they put " was sent" 
for " am sent ;" but see verses 30 and 47-55. 

22. " Continued making signs" for " beckoned" = rjv 
diarevGov. But see i. 14; xv. 16, etc.; Mark i. 22, etc. 

35. Here one can only wonder that the suggestion of the 
American Revisers was not followed. 

44. "Behold" for " lo" = 18 ov. "When" for "as soon 
as" = ooS. (?) 

46-55. Aorists rendered perfects all through, and articles 
inserted without any in the Greek. 

59. "Would have called" = euaXovv. This seems to 
imply an "if" following. Would it not have beenbetterif 
they had said, " were disposed, or minded, to call" ? 

62. "What" for "how." Very nice. Perhaps they 
would correct the French also, and put "que (for "com- 
ment") s'appelle-t-il" ? 

68-79. Aorists and articles as at 46-55. At 72, if the 
article is supplied it will give the old translation and a more 
consistent sense. 

76. " Make ready" for " prepare" = iroifiaaai : but see 

ii. 31. 

II. 

2. "The first" for "first;"— no article in the Greek. 
See Matt. xxii. 39. They translate as if they thought that, 
in the phrase " was the first made," etc., the " was made" 
could be the translation of eyevsro : but it is plain the 
phrase must mean " was the first which was made," and yet 
they have not marked " made" as an insertion. In the " was 
first made" of the A. V., " was made" = eyivero, and that 
without any trouble. 

6, 21, 22. " Fulfilled" for " accomplished;" — consequen- 
tial. 

8. "By night over their flock" for " over their flock by 
night." See also verse 41. Theirs is the Greek order, but 
the A. V. has the English and the logical order ; and besides, 
our ears are used to it. But see ii. 11; Matt. xii. 40, note ; 
2 Pet. ii. 3, etc. 



60 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

9. "An angel," "the glory;" — • no article in the Greek 
for either. See also "the city of David," verse 11, and 
"the Holy Ghost," verse 25. 

10. " Be not afraid" for "fear not ;" but see ix. 34. 

29. " According to thy word, in peace." One cannot but 
wish that the servile faithfulness of the Revision had some- 
times improved the English or cleared the sense; but for the 
most part it does just the contrary. See note at verse 8. 
The Revisers are after all inconsistent with themselves. 

31, Here they render ^roijiaaaZ "hast prepared" and 
not " hast made ready." They probably adopted some rec- 
ondite distinction, but as it was purely arbitrary, nobody 
can thank them for it. 

"Were marvelling" (imperfect); but see Mark xiv. 5, 
etc., etc. 

34. " Rising up" for " the rising again" = avaffraffiv : 
it should be ■ ' the rising again, " if it is " the falling ; ' ' there 
is no article in the Greek with either; but if they are re- 
ferred to different parties, the second requires the article 
in English as well as the first. " Which is" for " which 
shall be." The latter is certainly more consistent with the 
context, but neither need be inserted. 

35. " Thoughts of many hearts" for " the thoughts," etc. 
Why omit the article here, and yet insert it so often, where 
the Greek has none ? See verse 38, " the redemption" for 
" redemption." (?) 

43. " As they were returning" for " as they returned" 
= ev tgj L7ro<jrpi(psiv avrovs : (?) — " on their return." 

48. "Sought thee" for "have sought thee." "Sought 
thee," when? The A. V. is surely right. 

52. "Advanced" for " increased." This, as an intransi- 
tive verb, is a new word in the English Version. Is it 
necessary to faithfulness ? 

III. 

2. " In the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas" 
for " Annas and Caiaphas being high priests." This comes 
from the singular apjzfpf'cj? being substituted in the text 
for the plural apx^ptoov. But after all it has left the sense 



ST. LUKE. 6 1 

the same ; and if a change in the expression must be made 
to conform to the new Greek, it would be simpler to say : 
" Annas being high priest and Caiaphas." 

4. " Make ready" for "prepare." But seeii. 31, andxii. 20. 

7. " Warned" for "hath warned." (?) 

13. " Extort" for " exact" = 7tpa6Gere. Does the 
Greek mean " work out of" or "twist out of"? 

14. "Exact anything wrongfully" for "accuse any 
falsely" = (jVKO^arrrjarjre. (?) 

16. "With water." The American Revisers suggest "in 
water." On what ground, when there is no preposition in 
the Greek, and it is an instrumental dative ? They are to 
translate each Gospel independently. But the preposition 
iv means " with" or " by" in cases innumerable. 

23, etc. The articles here belong to the names and not to 
" The" should be in italics, therefore, as 
See Matt. xxii. 42. 

IV. 

2. "Completed" for "ended." This is better than put- 
ting " fulfilled" for "accomplished" at ii. 6, 21, 22. 

11. "And," separated from the quotation. Right; but 
they should have been as careful elsewhere, as, e.g., at Heb. 
x. 38. 

16. An awkward change of construction to suit the ar- 
rangement of the Greek. Faithfulness could not require 
it for that purpose ; and whether the sense required it, any 
intelligent reader can judge. 

18. "Anointed" for "hath anointed," aorist ; but it is 
manifestily coordinated, not contrasted, with a perfect. Cf. 
Acts xxi. 21, 24; xxv. 10, 11, etc. 

21. " Hath been fulfilled" for "is fulfilled ;" but see " it 
is written," "it is finished," etc., etc. 

26, 27. "But only" for "save" and "saving" = ei jatj. 
This is very well ; though the " only" is really added. It is 
not in the Greek here, as it is at vi. 4 ; where, curiously 
enough, the Revisers have (for consistency's sake?) put 
"save" for "but" = ei fxrj : as here "but" for "save." 



62 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

And yet (for still greater consistency's sake ?) at the perfectly 
parallel passage, Matt. xii. 4, they have retained the "but" 
of the A. V. ; while again at the parallel passage in St. Mark 
they have changed the "but" to " save." Indeed this ei piy 
seems to have been made a sort of football in the Revision. 
The translation is changed from "but" to "save," — with no 
better and no more consistent reasons than in the foregoing 
instances, — at Matt. xi. 27; Mark ix. 29, where "nothing 
but" is changed to "nothing save" (while at Mark xi. 13 
and Matt. v. 13 "nothing but" is left); x. 18; Rom. xiii. 
8; 1 Cor. ii. 11 ; 2 Cor. xii. 5 ; Rev. xiv. 3. On the other 
hand " save" is changed to " but," not only here in St. Luke, 
but at Rev. ii. 17, " no man saving" changed to " no one but," 
while at xiii. 17 and xiv. 3, "no man save" is retained. At 
Rom. vii. 7, "but" is changed to "except," while, in per- 
fectly similar constructions, at Matt. xii. 24 ; xv. 24 ; John 
x. 10 and xiv. 6, the " but" is retained. Similar cases of 
conseque?itial changes in the translation of eav /j.?j w T ill ap- 
pear hereafter. 

28. Here the change of construction is either needless or 
nonsensical. What sort of wrath is "wrath in the syna- 
gogue" ? 

34. "Ah" for "let alone" — ia. (?) "Art thou come" 
= fjXSs? (aorist). 

38. " Holden" for "taken" = ffwexo/ierrj. This may 
be faithful, but it is harsh in English. Would not " seized" 
be better ? see its legal sense. — Or "afflicted" ? 

V. 

9. " Amazed" for " astonished." (?) Scarcely consequen- 
tial even. 

10. " Sons" for "the sons ;" — the less natural English. 
17. "One of those days" for "a certain day" = jAiarojv 

r}}A.epdDV. But this is not literal after all, for tgov is not 
"those." 

19, 20. Change of construction needless; and see Mark 
ix. 33 ; Acts xxi. 2, 3, 4. 

27. " Beheld" for " saw" = iSeaffaTO : but see Matt, 
xi. 7, note. 



ST. LUKE. 6 T, 



VI. 



i. "Was going" for "went;" but "plucked" and " did 
eat" are equally for imperfects; why not "went on pluck- 
ing and eating"? 

35. "Sons" for " the children." But we have a right to 
insert the article with the predicate, if it makes more natural 
English; and we often use "children" for vioz, as "the 
children of Israel." 

38. " Guide" for " lead ;" what is gained ? 

48,49. "Brake" for "beat vehemently" = npoG^ppr}- 
gev. (?) 

VII. 

4. "And they, when they" for "and when they, they." 
A familiar piece of hypercriticism ; but see ix. 47 ; 
xxiii. 6, 8 ; Mark xv. 39; Matt. ix. 12 ; xi. 2 ; xii. 24, etc., 
etc.. "Worthy that for him" for "worthy for whom" == 
a£;io5 (p. 

5. " Built" for "hath built." (?) In such cases, only let 
the intelligent reader consider which is the most natural 
tense in the connection ; and remember that the decision 
does not depend at all upon the form of the Greek. 

12. "One that was dead" for "a dead man" = ts$ vrj- 
xgdS. " The only son," no article in Greek ; why not " an 
only son"? See v. 20, etc. " Was a widow," why insert 
" was" ? 

20. "Cometh" for "should come" = o epxoju€vos = 
" is to come" or " is coming" or " shall come." See xviii. 
20; John xviii. 4; xvi. 13; Actsxix. 4, etc. And see Matt, 
xi. 3, note. 

22. The article is here inserted six times, and yet " the 
Gospel" is changed to "good tidings." How did the 
Revisers ascertain that the verb evayyeM^OfAai must mean 
to preach " good tidings" (a gospel) and not " the Gos- 
pel" ? Certainly not from the Greek article. 

24. " Behold" for " see." See Matt. xii. 7, note. 

30. " For themselves" for " against themselves" = sis. 
What does this mean ? Is not eis connected with fiovXrjv, 



64 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

meaning-, if not " against," "towards" or " in regard to" ? 
But cf. Heb. xii. 3. 

38. " Wet" for "wash" = fips'xeiv : and so, at verse 44, 
"wetted" for "washed." This certainly does not sound 
well in English, though it may be the exact sense. It is too 
perfunctory, too menial. We must consult the English 
idiom, and ask what we should say in the circumstances. If 
we may not say " wash," is not the natural English expres- 
sion " bathe "? 

39. "That" for "for" = on. (?) 

42. " Not wherewith" for " nothing." (?) In the connec- 
tion the A. V. leaves no ambiguity. 

48. " Her sins, which are many, are forgiven"= acptoovrai 
ai adaption avrf/? ai7to\\ai. If they had been as zealous 
for the Greek arrangement here as in some other cases, they 
would have translated : ' ' Her sins are forgiven (or Forgiven 
are her sins), which are many, for" etc. ; and would thus 
have given us what the preceding parable and the immedi- 
ately subsequent clause show to be the true sense of the 
original, viz., that the woman's great love showed, not only 
that her sins were forgiven, but that her sins forgiven w r ere 
many, " for to whom little is forgiven the same loveth 
little." 

49. " Who is this that even forgiveth sins ?" for " who is 
this that forgiveth sins also ?" By this minute change how 
entirely the majestic movement and cadence of the English 
is ruined ! And as for the sense, or faithfulness to the 
Greek, see their own translation at Matt. v. 40; John xi. 
52 ; James iii. 2, 3, etc. If they say that the other things 
to which the" also" makes an addition are expressed in those 
other cases and not in this, we answer, the distinction is 
purely arbitrary ; it is enough that the other things are im- 
plied, that they are in the mind of the hearer or reader, 
whether they are expressed or not. 

VIII. 

25. "Marvelled" for " wondered." Shall we call this a 
"marvellous" or a " wonderful " piece of faithfulness? 
But see Matt. xv. 31 ; Luke ii. 18 ; iv. 22 ; xxiv. 41 ; Acts 



ST. LUKE. 65 

vii. 31 ; xiii. 41, etc., where it seems that this word $av- 
jua^GD may mean to wonder as well as to marvel. 

31, 32. " Intreated " for "besought" = napsxaXovv. 
What is the faithful difference? They "have rendered this 
word by "besought" at Matt. viii. 5, 31, 34; xiv. 36; 
xviii. 29, and in almost innumerable other cases; and, to cap 
the climax, they have so rendered it at Mark v. 10, 12, the 
passage which is directly parallel with this. Yet here they 
go out of their way to correct the A. V. ! Is it faithfulness ? 
Is it wantonness? Nothing but their consequential rule 
could be pretended as a justification of the change here ; and 
yet they violate that rule on the spot. 

34. "Had come to pass" for "was done" = ysyovoi. 
As for the tense, these are both forms of the pluperfect, and 
often so recognized by the Revisers. And for the signifi- 
cation of the word, see verse 56, " had been done ;" Matt, 
xviii. 31, "was done;" xxiv. 21, "hath been;" Mark ii. 21, 
"is made;" Luke xxii. 42, "be done;" xxiii. 47, 48, "was 
done," "were done." 

37. "Holden" for "taken" = (Tvveixovro. Why not 
" seized (i.e. possessed) with great fear"? 

39. " Publishing" for "and published. "(?) 

45. Change of construction unnecessary, and for the 
worse in English. The Greek has not unfrequently a sin- 
gular verb before several connected subjects. 

48. " Go in peace." Gr. eiS rendered " in ;" not " into." 

56. " Amazed " for " astonished." Consequential. See 
ix. 43. 

IX. 

9. " Sought" for " desired" — i8,rjrsi. (?) 

23, 24. "Would" for "will," again. See Matt. xvi. 24, 
25, note. 

34. "Said these things" for "thus spake" — ravra 
Xsyovroj. But see xix. 28 ; John ix. 6. " They feared" 
= £<po/3r/$T}ffav, — not "were afraid," as see ii. 10. 

"This is my Son, my chosen." For construction, com- 
pare Matt. xvii. 5 ; Mark ix. 7. 

43. " Astonished " for " amazed " = £g > £7t"kr}06ovto. 
Consequential, and amazingly important ! Cf. viii. 56. 



66 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

47. "But when Jesus saw the reasoning" for "And 
Jesus perceiving the thought." We let pass the idea of 
" seeing a reasoning ;' ' and merely observe that the Revisers 
have here adopted a construction which they have corrected 
in the A. V. in unnumbered instances, substituting for it 
the construction "but Jesus, when he saw," etc. = 6 dh. 
Ir/ffovs idoov, x.r.X. : and that they substitute in this case 
the Latin circumlocution for the participial construction 
whose use they had promised to enlarge. That iSgdv might 
mean "perceiving" appears from their own translation at 
Matt. xiii. 14; and Mark iv. 12, where i'dr/re = " perceive." 
" Thoughts" is their translation of dia\oyi<jfioi at Matt. xv. 
19; Mark vii. 21 ; Luke ii. 35; vi. 8. Truly they are hard 
to please. See vii. 4, note. 

X. 

5. " Shall enter" for " enter ;" but see John iv. 14. 

11, 20. " Howbeit" for " notwithstanding" = 7t\rfv. 

14. "Howbeit" for "but" = 7rXr/v. This "howbeit" is 
evidently a faithful favorite. See Matt. xxvi. 64, note. 

18. " Beheld falling" for " beheld fall,"— Tteaovra. But 
compare Mark ii. 16 ; vii. 2 ; ix. 38. 

21. "Didst hide" and "didst reveal" for" hast," etc. (?) 

22. " Have been delivered" for "are delivered ;" but see 
at verse 20, " are written." " Willeth to reveal" for " will 
reveal;" — note, they do not here say, " desireth to reveal." 

30. " Made answer, and " for" answering" = v7roXa/3ojv. 
What of using more participial constructions ? 

35. " I, when I ;" — stiff in English, and needless. " Back 
again" for " again." Either word might be used, but what 
need of both ? The Greek does not refer to a second return, 
nor does it at all require this reduplication. 

40. "Did leave" for "hath left;" and yet at verse 42, 
" hath chosen' ' = egeXtZaro. (!) At verse 39 why did they 
not render the imperfect by " was hearing" (?}hovs) ? 

XI. 

8. " Arise" for " rise" = eyepSeii : — a petty distinction 
being made between avaarai and eyep^ei s ; and yet the 
latter .is elsewhere freely translated by the word "rise." 



ST. LUKE. 67 

14. "Marvelled for "wondered" = aSavpiaGav. See 
viii. 25, note. 

18, 19, 20. " Devils" = ra SaijAOvia (not "the devils"). 

24.' "When he is gone out" = orav e^iX^rj. But see 
Matt. v. 11 ; Mark xii. 25, for the tense. And for the con- 
struction, see Matt. xii. 43, note. "Turn back unto" for 
"return" = vnoarpiipoo. (?) See Matt. xii. 44. 

33. "In a cellar" for " in a secret place" =xpv7Ttr}v. The 
A. V. is right, whether the Revision is or not. " Crypt" — 
cellar — is a later usage. 

35. If, to be very faithful, the ^7 is here to be rendered 
" whether," ought not the effrzv to be rendered " is" and not 
"be"? 

40. "Foolish ones" for "fools" = acppoves. (?) 

41. " Howbeit" for "but rather" 7tXr)v ; and see also at 
xii. 31. See Matt. xxvi. 64, note. 

42. The article is here again omitted before "mint" and 
" rue," but see " the weeping and gnashing." 



XII. 

5,7. Three times q)0/3r/$r)T8 is rendered by "fear," 
but at verse 4, being followed by ano, by "be afraid." 
See ii. 10, where it is " be afraid" for " fear," without the 
ano. 

15. " Keep yourselves from" for " beware of" = cpvXaG- 
gsgS-s, i.e. "be on your guard against." Is not the A. V. 
right ? 

20. " Hast prepared " for " hast provided" = ffToifiaGas, 
not " made ready." See iii. 4, etc. 

26. That which is least" = iXaxiGtov. It is not rd 
eXaxtGTOv : so that the Revisers recognize that the absence 
of the article may not differ much from the use of the gen- 
eric article. See conversely " the sower," " the virgin," etc. 

33. " Draweth near" for "approacheth;" — how faithfully 
necessary ! 

39. "Know this" for "this know" = rovro 6k yivco 6- 
ksts. Who can fathom the depths of revisional faithful- 
ness? " Have left" for " have suffered" = depfjns : where 



68 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

the sense must be the same, unless they suppose the man 
went away from his house, to go to sleep. 

45. "Shall say" for " say" = eikrf. What is the differ- 
ence in the sense ? It is subjunctive aorist, it is true; but 
see xiv. 34 ; xvi. 30, 31 ;. John viii. 51, where we have " go," 
" rise," "have lost," and " keep," in the same construction. 

4S. "Is given" = edoSt]. "Commit" for have com- 
mitted" = 7rape$evro. (?) Both are to be regarded as 
perfects. 

53. Here the sense is the same, whether with or without 
the articles. If used, they are generic or indefinite ; they do 
not refer to any particular object already definitely in the 
mind. 

59. "Have paid" for " hast paid" = anodcpS. But see 
verse 50, "be accomplished;" John xiii. 38, "hast denied;" 
2 Pet. i. 19, "dawn;" Matt, xviii. 30, "should pay;" 
Mark xii. 36, " make," etc. 

XIII. 

2, 4. "Were sinners," — iyevovro. 

4. "That dwell" for " that dwelt." If we say "dwell- 
ers," which of the two would be understood in this connec- 
tion ? That will test the two translations. 

3, 5. The GjffavrcDS and 6/ioigdZ of these two verses, — 
which are both rendered " likewise" in the A. V., — have been 
interchanged in the new text ; and, to show the exquisite 
nicety of their faithfulness, the Revisers have rendered one 
of them " in like manner" ! While they were about it, why 
did they not render, 6/xoigj? "likewise," and Go6avTGQS "just 
so," and thus transfer in full the Greek etymologies ? 

6. They insert " man" (without italics) instead of their 
ordinary "one." 

7, 8. " Also" = nod, — not "even;" see vii. 49. "Doth 
cumber" for " cumbereth." What, in the Greek or in Eng- 
lish, requires the change ? 

14. " Day of the sabbath" for " Sabbath day." The Eng- 
lish reader will now know exactly what day is meant. At 
xiv. 5, however, they put " sabbath day" for the same 
Greek. What can we say? 



ST. LUKE. 69 

22. "On unto" for ''toward" = eh. See John xx. 3, 
where we have "toward" for "to" = eh. " That be 
saved" = 01 '008,6 fxev 01. They retain the " be" for " are," 
and they do not say " be being saved;" but see Acts ii. 47. 

25. " Is risen up and hath shut," for the aorist subjunc- 
tive with av. 

31. "Would fain" for " will" = Siliei. Why not " seek- 
eth or is minded (to kill thee)" ? This would be as con- 
sequential as "would fain," which is so soon after, at 

XV. 16, Used for £7t6$V/AEl. 

XIV. 

1,5. "A sabbath" for " the Sabbath day." Here is an in- 
stance of the Revisers' articular precision. But if faith- 
fulness required such minute punctiliousness here, it surely 
required them to be consistent with themselves elsewhere. 
Yet at Matt. xii. 2 ; John vii.22, 23, they render iv Gafifiarcp 
(no art.) "on or upon the sabbath." At Mark vi. 2, yevo- 
fievov (fa/3j3arov, and at Mark xvi. 1, Siayevojxkvov 
6a(3fiarov, are rendered "when the sabbath was," etc, 
At Luke xxiii. 54 Gafifiarov (no art.) is rendered "the sab- 
bath" (drew on). 

S, 10. " Art bidden" = uXtjB'rjg— not " shalt be," but see 
xvii. 10; Mark xiii. 7; and compare with these last Matt, 
xxiv. 15 and Mark xiii. 14. 

13, 21. In the 13th verse we have " the poor, the maimed, 
the lame, the blind,"— all without any article in the Greek ; 
—and, in verse 21, we have "the poor and maimed and 
blind and lame,"— with the article in the Greek before 
"poor" only. Now if, in English, the article is understood 
before the latter members of the enumeration after being 
expressed before the first, in verse 21, we cannot comprehend 
why it could not have been understood in like manner in 
verse 13 ; for to insert "and," if necessary, before the last 
would be cheaper than to insert "the" three times. But if 
it is not so understood in verse 21, then we do not see why 
it should have been inserted at all in verse 13. But we 
humbly beg pardon for our obtuseness. 

28. " Desiring" for " intending" = BiXaov. Is not the 



70 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

A. V. right here; and, in general, does not SsXgd refer more 
to effective purpose or volition, and less to mere idle desire, 
than the Revisers are accustomed to recognize ? 

XV. 

i. " Were drawing near" for ''drew near." — Harsh. 

4, "And having lost one" for "if he lose one. " See 
verse 8, showing that the sense is really the same ; and then 
compare Heb. vi. 6. 

5, 6. " When he hath found" = evpajv : and " when he 
cometh" = eXSoov : both with the indicative present. 

9. "I have found" = evpov. " I had lost" = a7tooXeaa : 
but see Mark xii. 12. 

18, 21. I "have sinned" = r/jj.aprov, — not "I sinned;" 
see Rom. v. 12. 

24. "Is alive again" = avs2,rj6£v. "Is found" = 
evp&rf. 

30. "Came" for "is come," and " killedst" for "hast 
killed." Aorists, as before at verses 5, 6, 9, 18, 21, 24, also 
at 32 ; where they are rendered perfects. 

XVI. 

2. " Canst" = dvvi)(5Y), future; see Mark iii. 17. 
4. " Each" for " every." But see Matt. xxvi. 22. 

6, 7. " Bond" for " bill" = raypd/ijuara : — writings or 
scrip. (?) 

8. " His lord" for "the lord" = 6 nvpioS. It means 
"his lord" no doubt, but see at verse 1, "the disciples" 
put for " his disciples." Is there any doubt that they were 
"his disciples"? The construction following (with the A. 
V.) departs from the order of the Greek, which puts " their 
generation" after "wiser;" but compare other passages 
where the Revisers so servilely follow the Greek con- 
struction. " The light" for " light" = rov cpooro^. Here 
the generic article is not necessary in the English idiom ; 
sec Rom. xiii. 12; Eph. v. 11. 

9. " That they may receive you." Why not " that ye may 
be received" ? See xii. 20. 

13. The omission of the article before the second " one," 



ST. LUKE. 71 

in English, makes the " or else" utterly unmeaning. We 
say nothing about the change of the Greek text ; but cf. 
Acts i. 24. 

16. " Entereth violently" for " presseth" = fiidgerai : 
— why not say " forceth his way"? 

21. " Yea, even" for " moreover" = aXka nai. But see 
xxiv. 22. 

25. "Son," retained for rknvov. This would better 
suit the English ear in many other cases also ; and in like 
manner " children" for viol. But the Revision commonly 
grecizes. 

30,31. "Go," "rise, "—not "shallgo," " shall rise"— for 
" went," " rose." But after all is the A. V. here so very far 
from right ; considering that " went" and " rose," after " if," 
used often to mean, and still may mean, " should go" and 
" should rise" ? In fact, if the revised translation at John 
viii. 55 is correct, then the A. V. in this pasgage, — much as 
it has been criticised and condemned, — is right after all. 
For the question is not whether " went" and " rose" may 
mean " should go" and " should rise," — of this there can be 
no doubt, as, e.g., " if you went you would not find him," — 
but the real question is whether such a conditional tense as 
" should go" or "should say" can grammatically be joined 
with a future. But it is so joined at John viii. 55, — "If I 
should say .... I shall be ;" and that in the Revision, and 
that deliberately, for it is a passage where the Revisers have 
made one of their characterstic emendations of the A. V., 
putting " shall be like unto you, a liar,' ' for " shall be a liar 
like unto you." See also 2 Cor. x. 8 and xii. 6. Also John 
vi. 62 may bean analogous case, where the Revisers put "if 
ye should see" for" if ye shall see;" while at Luke xii. 
45, they correct the A. V. by putting "if he shall say," 
for "if he say;" and then here, "if one go" and "if one 
rise" ! 

XVII. 

2. "Were well" = XvffireXez : "were hanged" = nspL 
xsirai: " were thrown" = ippinrai (perf.). So English 
idiom counts for something. 

6. * ' Would have obeyed" = vrtrfuovasv. What a jumble 



12 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

of tenses and of ideas in English j — "if ye have faith, ye 
would say, and it would have obeyed" ! Cf. verses 2, 9, to. 

8. " Have eaten and drunken." Compare xv. 4, 8, — to 
show that the Greek tenses are somewhat flexible. 

9, 10. Here, the tenses, following the A. V., are conformed 
to the requirements of the sense ; cf. verse 6. 

20. " Cometh" for " should come." It should be either 
(orat. rect.)" when cometh the kingdom of God ?" or (orat. 
obi.), " when the kingdom of God should come;" as in the 
A. V. See xviii. 9, — "were" for siffi. 

24. " When it lighteneth" for "that lighteneth;" because 
the text is changed by omitting the article before the par- 
ticiple. Is this required by faithfulness, or is it the precision 
of pedantry ? Cf. John iv. 39 and v. 44, note. 

33. " Gain'' for " save" = mpi7ioii]6a6^ai (new text for 
GGDGai). Do they mean, "gain his livelihood" ? At Heb. 
x. 39, they retain " saving" for 7t£pi7toirj0iS. 

XVIII. 

5. "Wear out" for " weary" = v7too7tiaS,r). (?) 

7. " Cry to him day and night" for" cry day and night 
unto him." How punctilious the faithfulness ! 

19. " Even" for " that is." Is this for belter English, or 
is it for greater faithfulness to the Greek ? 

30. " World to come" — rob epxo^svaj. See vii. 20. 

37. " That' ' should have been omitted, as elsewhere by the 
Revisers, or else the tense changed. See xix. 7, 11, etc. 

XIX. 

8. "Have wrongfully exacted" for "have taken by false 
accusation" = iovKoq)6cvr^6a. (?) 

14. " We will not that" for " we will not have." Which is 
the better English ? Cf. Acts. xvi. 3 ; 1 Cor. x. 1 ; Col. ii. 1. 

17. " Wast found" for " hast been" = eytvov. (?) For 
tense see verse 8. 

22.* "That I am" for "that I was." But see verses 7 
and 11. 

23. " Then wherefore" for " wherefore then" ? 



ST. LUKE. 73 

27. " Howbeit" for " but" = n\i)v. "But" is retained 
at xxii. 21, 22; xxiii. 28; Matt, xviii. 7, etc. Howbeit — 

42. " Are hid" = ixpvprj. 

43. "Bank" for " trench" (" embankment" ?) = x^P aKa - 
47. " Chief of" changed to " principal men of" = 7tpGQ- 

roi. How important ! how exquisitely exact ! or, how 
considerate of the English ear ! 

4S. " Listening" = axovaov. But " listening" is too 
strong, Why not say " as they heard him," and be con- 
sistent with xvii. 24 ? 

XX. 

1. " There came" for " came" encumbers and enfeebles 
the English without being a whit more faithful to the sense 
of the original. 

17. " Was made" for " is become," = £y£v?)$rf. (?) 

20. " Righteous" for "just men." A frequent, change — 
bad, here, and rarely necessary. 

25. "Then render" for "render therefore." Does a 
change in the order of the Greek require a change in the 
order of the English ? 

33. " In the resurrection therefore" for " therefore in the 
resurrection." Greek order again. But is this for better 
English, or is it for a different sense ? Which ? 

36. " Sons" for "the children"= vioi. As for the article, 
this is a predicate ; and as for the noun, what is the dif- 
ference? and see "the children of Israel." 

43. " Footstool of thy feet," again. For this un-English 
reduplication, the Revisers, as we ought to acknowledge, 
have the authority of the Rhemish version. But the Vul- 
gate was not deformed with such a verbal jingle, reading 
" scabellum pedum tuorum ;" which Wyclif imitated well 
with his "stool of thi feet." The case is similar also with 
the original Hebrew text. In the Greek the alliteration 
may have been a beauty or a necessity. There may have 
been no good word for stool, which was not " footstool." 

XXI. 

1. If "the" belongs to " rich men," here, what occasion 
for inserting " that were" before "casting"? And notice 



74 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

that though the order in the Greek text has been changed 
so as to bring "treasury" before "gifts," the Revisers have 
not felt bound in faithfulness to change the order in the 
English, and say "casting into the treasury their gifts." 
This is sensible ; but see xx. 25, etc. 

12. "Bringing'' for "being brought" = a7tayoj^avov?. 
Which is more faithful to the original? 

13. "Unto" for "to," with dative. How exquisitely, 
how unspeakably nice the sense which found this change 
required by faithfulness! At xviii. 7, they substitute "to" 
for " unto," their text having substituted the dative for 
npoS with accusative ! 

15. "Withstand"' for "resist." Why? 

19. "Win" for "possess." Good; but would not 

" gain" be better ? 

XXII. 

1,7. "Of unleavened bread," tgqv a£v/j,Gov. But the arti- 
cle ? 

10. " Whereinto he goeth" for "where he entereth in" 
= ov eiGrtopeverai = " where he goeth in." 

17, 19. Change of construction entirely indefensible. 
See Mark xiv. 22 ; note. 

18. "Until shall come"= s\$y. But see xii. 59. 

24. " Is accounted" for " should be accounted." Better, 
" was accounted" (orat. obi.), i.e., rightfully, as A. V. 
means? 

3 1 , 32, 33. "Asked" for " hath desired;" " made suppli- 
cation" for " have prayed." (?) In all their other changes 
in these three verses the Revisers are inconsistent with 
themselves, except in putting " stablish" for " strengthen," 
and this was scarcely necessary. For "thou," etc., see 
xxiii. 6, 8. 

37. " Fulfilled" for " accomplished"== rfAecr^^^^z. But 
see John xix. 28, 30. So " fulfillment" for "end"= TtXoZ. 

42, 43, 44. " Be done"= yivtffB cd : "being" = ysvopis- 
voz : " became" for " was" — eyevsro. But one of the pet 
ideas of the Revisers seems to have been to correct the A. 
V. in its variations of the rendering of the same word in a 
given connection. See Acts xxvi. 24, 25. 



ST. LUKE. 75 

46. "That not" for " lest"=zW firj. But see John v. 14 ; 
xii. 40, etc. What is their nice distinction ? 

56. " In the light of the fire" for " by the fire"= npoS to 
cptiS= "at" or "by the light," not " in." (The Portu- 
guese uses "lume" for "fire.") The change of construc- 
tion is needless. "Looking steadfastly" for "earnestly 
looked" = aTevio*ao~a : but at Acts vi. 15 they have 
actually changed the " looking steadfastly" of the A. V. to 
"fastening their eyes," although there are in the Greek 
no more " eyes" there than here ! 

57. In their text the order of the Greek is changed from 
yvvai, ovx oida avrov to ovx oida avrov, yvvai .• and 
yet they have left " woman" as it stood in the A. V. But 
see xx. 25 ; see also Matt. xxvi. 22, 25, etc. 

64. The change of construction here is unnecessary, and 
destroys a pleasing variety. 

XXIII. 

1. " Brought" = yyayov : but at xxii. 54 it is rendered 
" led away." In the A. V. it is " led" in both cases. At 
xxii. 54, eiffr/yayov, " brought,' ' immediately follows. 
Which translation is most faithful to the original ? 

6,8. " When Pilate heard," "when Herod saw." For 
the construction see vii. 4, note. 

14, 15. These aorists would be more naturally translated 
as English perfects, with the A. V. See verses 22 and 41. 

19. The insertion of "one" before "who" (for offri?) is 
not necessary, as they themselves show elsewhere. " Was 
cast into" = ?)v fi\r}$e\Z iv rrj. Here iv r7\ <pv\axrj — a 
new reading — is rendered just as eh cpvXaxrjv is at verse 25 
— preposition and article to the contrary notwithstanding. 

20. The l( again" is not put in the Greek order; but see 
the faithful corrections at Mark iv. 1 ; viii. 13, 25 ; xiv. 70, 
etc. 

44. " Now" = rfdrf. But see Matt. xiv. 15, where " now" 
is changed to "already." "A darkness" for "darkness" 
= (jxotoS. But see Matt, xxvii. 45, and Mark xv. 33, where 
they say "darkness." Was this petty insertion of "a," 
then, required by faithfulness here and not there ? 



76 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

47. "Certainly this was a righteous man." In St. Mat- 
thew the centurion " and they that were with him" said, 
"Truly this was the Son [not ' a son'] of God," Matt, 
xxvii. 54. The centurion had probably heard at the trial 
of Jesus — and must have heard from the taunts of those who 
mocked him upon the cross — that he claimed to be " the Son 
of God. ' ' He now cries out, ' ' Certainly this was a righteous 
man," — a man who would be guilty of no falsehood or fraud ; 
he must therefore he. what he claimed to be, — he must be, " he 
was, the Son of God.''' Whether the centurion himself used 
the various expressions, or whether they are to be ascribed 
partly to the centurion and partly to " them that were with 
him," is a matter of no consequence. We should say of 
Achilles, "He was the son [not ' a son'] of a goddess;" 
and of Hercules, " He was the son of Jupiter." 

49. " Seeing" for " beholding'' = 6pcoo~ai. Now if this 
were an original translation we should be far from finding 
any fault. But was there any need of the change ? The 
lexicons give to opaoo and eidov the meaning " behold." 
The Revisers translate idov in the next verse " behold." 
The connection shows that opooffai in this verse means the 
same as ^scop?j(TavrSb in the 48th verse ; and we have 
already seen (and shall further find) that the Revisers have 
been constrained to allow "see" as a translation of BeGopioo, 
as well as of opaao. See John viii. 51, etc. 

54. "The day," "the sabbath." No article in the 
Greek. 

56. The jxfv is here ignored. The answering di is in the 

next verse (xxiv. 1). 

XXIV. 

6 and 34. " Is risen" = ijyepOrj : — not "was raised ;" but 
see 1 Cor. xv., etc. 

13. " Were going" for " went." But this might mean, 
" were intending, or about, to go." 

26. "Behoved it not" for "ought not." Why not say 
11 must not," as at Mark xiv. 31 ? 

30. "When" for"as" = fV tg3 = while. 

34. " Is risen' ' = rjyepOrf ; " hath appeared"= GO<pdr}. See 
John ii. 22. 



ST. JOHN. 77 

39. " Behold me having" for " see me have ;" — Greek for 
English. 

41. "Disbelieved for joy"! A strange state of mind; 
but see Mark xvi. 14, and Rom. iii. 3 and iv. 20. Unbelief, 
or want of faith, and positive disbelief are two things. 

51. "He parted" for "he was parted" = dit6ti]. The 
verb may mean either " to stand apart" or " to be parted." 

50. " Over against" for " to " = 7tp6s. Here npoS is a 
new reading for £z's, and of course must be respected. But 
it is rendered "to" or "unto" by the Revisers fifty times 
to once of "against," and we do not find another instance 
of " over against." 

ST. JOHN. 
I. 

3 and 10. " Were made" = eyevsto. 

6. " Came" for "was" = iyevero. 

7. " Came" = r/XOsv. "Might believe through him" 
for " through him might believe. " Did faithfulness require 
this conformity to the Greek order just here and not at 
Matt. x. 32, etc., etc. ? 

7,8. "That he might," "that they might," for " to" = 
i'va. But cf. verse 19; iii. 17, etc. 

9. " There" for " that" spoils the sense ; and what need 
of inserting " even the light'' ? unless, indeed, the text is to 
mean the same as the margin ; and, if so, the margin is cer- 
tainly the clearer and better translation. 

11. Here the Revisers have only half done their work. 
They have shown that the second "his own" are persons 
(masculine) ; they fail to show that the first " his own" are 
things (neuter). It would be difficult fully to bring out the 
distinction in English. If we might change the number of 
the first "his own," we might say, "he came to what was 
his own, and they that were his own received him not ;" or, 
retaining the number, " he came to his own possessions, and 
his own people received him not." At Matt. xix. 21, ra 
vnapxovxa (plural) is rendered "that thou hast." But 
what trifling ! Everybody knew before that the second 



73 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

"his own" meant persons, and the first, though neuter in 
the Greek, must mean substantially the same. 

12, " Children'' for "the sons," and "the right" for 
"power." No article in Greek w T ith either; and yet 
"children" is a predicate, while " right" is not. 

14. "We beheld his glory, glory," etc, Surely the last 
"glory" should have either "the" or "a;" for by the fore- 
going " his" it has already been individualized. The mar- 
ginal reading is curious on articles. 

15. Here "is become" for "is preferred" is scarcely 
intelligible. Why not say, " is put" ? 

18. A perfect and an aorist are coordinated ; and 6 gov is 
rendered " which is," and not " even he which is." 

27. Cf. "even he that " with "which" at verse 29 ; and 
" one whom" with 6 aneipoov. 

32 and 38. "Ha\'e beheld" for "saw" = re^eajxai, and 
" beheld" for "saw" = S-saGajuevos. But see vi. 5 ; Mark 
xvi. 14; Acts xxi. 27; Rom. xv. 24, etc. And are not 
reSzafxai and e'/xsivev in fact coordinated in time ? Cf. 
iii. 32; Phil. iv. 11, 12, etc. 

36. Here the A. V. follows the Greek in the participial 
construction, which the Revision changes. 

41. "Findeth first" for "first findeth." Well? 

42. "Unto" for "to" = npo?. Happily it is not "over 
against." But see Matt. ii. 12 ; iii. 14, etc., etc., where all 
along 7rp6s is rendered by "to." Just think of this in- 
effable faithfulness. 

43. " Was minded to" for "would;" much better than 
"desired to," as elsewhere. 

45, 46. Why not follow the Greek order, — "Jesus, son 
of Joseph, even him from Nazareth"? Compare Heb. ii. 9; 
and for "son" without the article compare Mark iii. 17. 

II, 

3. " The wine" for "wine" (gen. abs.), no article in 
Greek. Faithfulness; — see Matt. xxvi. 27, etc. 

9. "Now become" for "which was made," — marg. "that 
it had become," = yeyEvqjxLvov. How they wrestle with 
their articular purism ! 



ST. JOHN. 79 

10. "Have drunk freely" for " have well drunk" = 
/AeSvffSGjffiv. Is either right? The Greek word has no 
relation to drinking, except in connection with drunkenness. 

13. "Passover of the Jews" for "the Jews' Passover." (?) 
See verse 6. 

15. "He made" for "when he had made''* = 7roir/(jaS.(?) 

16. If faithfulness required the order to be changed here, 
why did they not also say at verse 15, "the tables he over- 
threw," thus being consistent ? 

20. "Was in building" = gj HoSojur/St? — aorist rendered 
as imperfect, for continued action. 

22. "Was raised" for "was risen" = tjyepSr/j again. 

See Luke xxiv. 34, etc. 

III. 

3. "Anew" for " again" = avGoSev. (?) The A. V., 
margin, "from above." 

4. "A second time" for "the second time" = Sevrepov. 
(See Mark xii. 31 and xiv. 72); and then "of water and 
the Spirit," — no article in Greek with either. 

6. "That which is born," not "has been born." See 
verses 18, 21, and 27. 

12. " If I told" for "if I have told" = iav einoo : not 
"shall tell." See their correction at Luke xii. 45 ; and 
for the "have" see Luke xiv. 34, etc. Cf. John viii. 55. 

13. " Out of heaven" = ex rov ovpavou. But see verse 
31. "Which is" = o gov : not "even he which is." But 
see James iv. 12. 

15. Text and margin, interchange? 

16. " His only begotten Son," not "his Son, the only 
begotten," or " even him who was his only begotten," to 
conform to the Greek. 

18. "Judged" for "condemned;" — but the judgment 
must here imply condemnation, and yet it is not the idio- 
matic or natural English word for that purpose. ''Doom" 
and "condemn" would be the exact etymological corre- 
spondents to xpivao and naranpivoa. 

21, 27. " Have been wrought, " "have been given," for 
" are wrought" and " be given;" but see "it is written," 
and verse 6 ; and see at verse 



80 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

24. "Was (not yet) cast" ==rjv fisfiXr/juevoS = "had 
been cast." 

32. ' KoopaKSv and ijKOvaev are coordinated, and are 
rendered together as perfects. Cf. xvii. 

33, 34. Aorists continue to be rendered as perfects right 
through; and here we have "hath sent" for a7tiarei\ev } 
which elsewhere is rendered "sent." Cf. xvii. 

IV. 

3. "Departed" = a7tfj\$€v. But see v. 15 and Acts xvi. 

4. "Must needs" — i'dei. But see Acts i. 16 ; xvii. 3 ; 
and compare Luke xxii. 7 and Heb. ix. 26. 

8. " Were gone," not " had gone" for the pluperfect. 

9. "Therefore" for "then," and order changed. This is 
the ovv of sequence, not of consequence? "Samaritan 
woman" for " woman of Samaria," — faithfulness ! 

10. "Knewest ;" should it not be " hadst known," as it 
is followed by " wouldest have asked" ? 

17. " Saidst" for " hast said" = einas. (?) 

18. " Hast had" = i'ax^- 

19. " Perceive" = SsGopoj. But see xii. 19. 

25. "Declare" for " tell" = avayysXsi = announce, re- 
port. "Tell" is nearer than "declare"? 

27. " Speak" for " talk"= XaXioo. {?) 

31. "Prayed" (not " asked ") = ijpgdtgjv : note. 

33. " The disciples therefore said" for " therefore said the 
disciples." How strikingly necessary ! " Hath brought' '= 
rfveyxev. 

35. "Look on" (not " behold") = ^saffaaSe. Cf. 1 John 
i. 1, where they change " looked upon" to " beheld." 

39. " Who testified." No article with the participle; but 
see Heb. i. 1, and Luke xvii. 24. 

45. "So" for "then." The ovv of sequence. And so, 
often ; but what of it ? 

46. But here "so" is changed to "therefore." Compare 
verses 52 and 53. 

47. " When he heard . . he ;" not " he, when he heard" = 
ovros auovGaS. 



ST. JOHN. 8 1 

54. "Having come" for "when he was come/' See 
Mark xiv. 45 and Acts xx. 2. 

V. 

2. "In" for "at:"— faithfulness. 

3, 5, 7. " Impotent" changed to " sick" = aaSevovvTGQV : 
but "infirmity" retained for a(?$eveia. 

6. " Wouldst" for "wilt ;" but see verses 21, 40. 

8. "Arise" for "rise." (!) 

9. " Was made [not ' became'] whole" = eyevero. 

10. "So" for " therefore" = ovv : — wherefore? Cf. iv. 
46. 

14. "Lest" = iva jxr} : but see xii. 35, 40. ■' Befall" for 
" come unto" = ytvrftai. (?) 

15. " Went away" for " departed ;" see iv. 3. 

16. "For this cause" for "therefore" =6ia rovro, fol- 
lowed by " because," also at verse 18 ; and so at vi. 65, and 
1 John iii. 1. Butcf. Matt. xiii. 13; xxiv. 44; Luke xii. 22, 
etc. 

19. "But" = iav pLtf. Compare Gal. ii. 16. Note the rz, 
rendered " what," equivalent to "that which," like a after- 
wards. 

26, 27. "Gave" for "hath given;" (?) " a son of man" 
should be " the son of a man," if any change. " Shall come 
forth" (not " go") = 6K7topsvGovTai. 

29. "Done [or practised] ill," for "done evil"= ra 
cpavXa 7tpa£;avrEZ. 

34. Literally: "but I not from man receive the testi- 
mony." "May be "saved" for might be saved" = 
ggqStjts. (?) 

35. Better, "the burning and shining lamp" than "the 
lamp that burneth and shineth." (?) 

44. "Which receive" = Xaj^jSarovre?, — not 01 Xa/x/3. : 
see also iv. 39 ; but compare Luke xvii. 24; Heb. i. 1, etc. 

VI. 

2. "Sick" for " diseased;'' but see Acts xxviii. 9. 
5. " Seeing" = Seaaafxevos : but see i. 32, etc., etc. 



82 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

6. "Are to" for "shall." The subjunctive does not 
require the change. 

n. "Having given thanks" for "when he had given 
thanks." If faithfulness required this change here, why not 
also at Mark xiv. 22, 23; Luke xxii. 17, 19? and compare 
Matt. xxvi. 26, 27. 

12. "Broken pieces" for "fragments." (?) 

13. " So" for " therefore" = ovv. Hownice! Seeverse 
19 and iv. 46. 

14. " When, therefore, the people saw the sign . . . they 
said," for "then those [the] men, when they had seen the 
miracle, said," = 01 ovv avSpoonoi idovrei 6r}jxziov. See 
Luke xxiii. 8, where 6rjpi£iov= " miracle ;" see verse 11 
for the tense of idovre? : and avBpoonoi commonly means 
"men." As for the change of construction it is directly 
the reverse of the Revisers' ordinary correction, — see Luke 
vii. 4, note. " Cometh" for " should come" = 6 spxopievoS. 
See Matt. xi. 3 and Luke vii. 20, notes. 

15. "Were about to" for "would" = piiWovGi : but 
see verse 6, " would" = e'/xeWe, and verse 71. 

17. "Was" = syeyovei, why not "was [or 'had'] 
grown." " Had come" = sX^Xvdei for "was come;" but 
see xi. 30; xvi. 28, 32; xvii. 1, etc., etc. Consistency 
faithfulness, "straightway." "Unto" for " toward" = 
si? : but see xx. 3, where they put "toward" for "to;" and 
they have frequently changed "to" to " for" = s is, — see 
Acts xxvii. 1, 6 — to which " toward" would here correspond ; 
per contra, Acts xxvii. 2. The intelligent English reader 
can decide questions like these as well as the profoundest 
Greek scholar. 

19. " When therefore" for " so when" = ovv after part, 
perf. See verse 13. 

21. "They were willing, therefore, to receive him," for 
"Then they willingly received him" = ?]6s\ov ovv Xafislv. 
Which is the sense ? 

25. " When they found" for " when they had found" = 
svpovrss. See verse 11, note, and Acts xxi. 2, 3, 4. 
" Camest" = ysyova?, not "hast come;" see also Gal. iii. 
17; 2 Cor. H. 13; Heb. xi. 28. How durst they render a 



ST. JOHN. 83 

perfect thus ? Cf. i. 3 ; Matt. xix. 8 ; xxiv. 21 ; xxv. 6 ; Mark 
v. $Si etc -> etc «; especially Mark ix. 21. 

27. " For him the Father, *z/*# God, hath sealed" = rovrov 
yip 6 nar?)p £6cpiyio~£v y 6 Qeos. What a jolt in the 
English ! And why change at all ? or, if they must change, 
why not adhere strictly to the Greek, and say: "for him 
did the Father seal, even God" ? 

28. " What must we do ?" for "What shall we do ?" = ri 
7toiGjjj.£v $ (?) What shall we say? 

29. "Hath sent," marg. " Sent" == ink 6?£ i\sv. Won- 
drous nicety. 

30. " What workest thou ?" for " What dost thou work?" 
Revisional faithfulness. 

31. "Ate" for "did eat." But see verse 49, where " did 
eat" remains. They could not hold the split hair steady. 
" Out of heaven" for "from heaven." But see iii. 31 ; Rev. 
x. 4, etc. 

32. 34. "Jesus therefore" for "then Jesus," = ovv. (?) 
37, 39. "All that which" for " all that" = ndv o. (?) 

40. " Beholdeth" for " seeth" = Oecopcov. (?) 

44. "In" for "at" (the last day) = iv. But they retain 
"at" at 39, 40, 54, etc. 
49, 58. " Died" for " are dead." But see viii. 52, etc. 

41, 53, etc., etc. "Therefore" for " then" = ovv. This 
change is so frequent in St. John's Gospel that we need refer 
to it no more in particular. The question is, does the ovv 
express narrative sequence or logical consequence ? The Re- 
visers differ in judgment here from the forty-seven transla- 
tors of the A. V., assuming a logical consequence much more 
frequently than their predecessors. This can be supposed 
and imagined in many cases, where it is by no means neces- 
sary to presume it. Let intelligent readers judge. 

56. " Abideth" for " dwelleth" = /livei. So the indwell- 
ing of Christ, or of the Holy Spirit in us, is henceforth to 
be an " in-abiding." 

65. "For this cause" for " therefore" = dii rovro. See 
ix. 16 ; Acts xxviii. 20; Rev. xii. 12; and notes at v. 16, and 
1 John iii. 1. "Be given" for "were given" (have been 
given). 



84 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

66. " Upon this" for " from that time" = in rovrov. 

67. " Would (for" will") ye also go away" = OeXsre ; but 
see v. 40. 

70. " Did choose" for " have chosen." (?) 

71. " Should" = tj/asWsv : not " was about to." See verse 

15 and vii. 39. 

VII. 

3. " Behold" for " see" = dsGopeoo. The particular cases 
of this pet alteration need not be further noticed. Is it re- 
quired by faithfulness ? Again, let English readers judge. 

4. "Manifest" for " show." (?) 

10. " Were gone up" = avefitjGav : " went up" = are fit]. 
Cf. xvii. 

16, 17. "Teaching" for " doctrine" = SiSaxrj- The Re- 
visers seem to have assumed that didaxrj means the act of 
teaching (Sida£;iS) exclusively, and SidaGuaXia the thing 
taught or doctrine. But is not this an arbitrary distinction ? 
Does not didaxr/ in this very case mean the thing taught, 
the doctrine, and not the act of teaching ? " Willeth" = 
OeXrj : — not "desireth." " From myself" for "of myself." 
"To speak of myself" might be ambiguous, but "to speak 
from myself" is hardly English. See 28 and xi. 51. 

21. " Did" for " have done"= inoij^aa. It is followed by 
"marvel" and not "marvelled." So at verses 23 and 29; 
compare verse 31. 

23. Change of order needless, and it enfeebles the Eng- 
lish. " Wroth" for " angry" = x°^ re — equally needless. 

24. " Appearance" for " the appearance " = nar oipiv : a 
phrase, — compare " in town," " in the city," and the French 
" a vue d'oeil." But is their phrase a settled English idiom ? 

26, 27. " Know" = i'yvooGav and oi f dafj.ev. Why not say 
" What !" for /*?/, as at verse 41, and be consistent ? See 
Acts xxvi. 24, 25. 

31. " Hath done" = inoirfae. This refers to the arjfxsia, 
one of which is spoken of in verses 21, 23. "When the 
Christ shall come" for. . . "cometh." But see xvi. 13, 
and cf. viii. 28. 

38. " Hath said" = einev. 

39. "Were to" for " should" = efxeWov. So vi. 15 and 



ST. JOHN. 85 

Acts xxii. 29 ("were about to"); but see vi. 71 and Gal. 
iii. 23. Ilvevjua = " the Spirit" (no art.). 

40. " This is of a truth" for " of a truth this is" ! 

45. " Did bring" for " have brought." (?) 

51. "A man" = TOK avdpGonov, — the generic article. 
See Matt. i. 23; a7teipoDv y etc. 

VIII. 

9. " Where she was" = ovaa. There is nothing at all for 
" where." Is this translation or paraphrase? They might 
have said "being," or omitted ovffa altogether; but they 
would have been quite as near the original, even in their 
new text, if they had retained the "standing" of the A. V. 

14. " Even if" for " though" = nav. But see x. 38. 

16. "Yea and if" for " and yet if" = nai iav . . . de = 
"■ but even if." 

17. "Yea and" for " also" = nai . . . (5£ = "but also," 
or "but even." 

25. " Even that which I have also spoken unto you," for 
"Even the same that I said unto you"=o ri nai XaXao 
vfA.iv , — (" what I am also speaking to you [from the begin- 
ning" = rr/v apxw])- 

26. " Heard" for " have heard" == rjnovaa. (?) 

27. "Perceived" for " understood" = iyvcoaav. But 
see verse 43 and x. 6; see also iii. 10, "understand" for 
" know. " " Spake" = eXeyev ; just above " speak" always 
stands for XaXi go. 

28. "Have lifted up" = vtpGD(?r/TS. Cf. vii. 31. 

29. "That are pleasing to" for "that please" = ta 
apeara. Faithfulness. 

31. "Truly" for " indeed" = aXrj6a9^. See vi. 55; but 
surely aXrjOaoS corresponds as well to the adverb " indeed" 
as aXr}9r/s did. 

33. " We be" = iejuev : is this the English of the present 
day ? " Shall be made" = yevrjGeeQs, — not " shall be- 
come." Why not ? Elsewhere they struggle hard to get in 
something besides " made," see ii. 9, etc. 

34. " Bond-servant" for " servant" === dovXos. Elsewhere 
in text, " servant." 



86 



NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 



36. " If therefore the Son" for "if the Son therefore,"— 
exquisite faithfulness. " Shall make/' see Luke xvi. 30, 
31, etc., etc. 

39. "Our father is Abraham" for "Abraham is our 
father." Oh! wondrous faithfulness! The subject has 
the article in Greek ; but does not a proper name make 
some difference? Cf. Acts xviii. 5 ; 1 John ii. 22 ; v. 1. 

40. " Heard" for " have heard" = rfKOva a. (?) 

41. "Works" for " deeds" = spy a. The Revisers allow 
spyov to mean " deed," in the singular number, as at Luke 
xxiv. 19, etc., etc. ; but not in the plural to mean "deeds," 
as cf. Acts vii. 22. But this is an arbitrary distinction; 
and their vigilance has failed them in one instance, 2 Pet. 
ii. S. What would be unobjectionable in an independent 
translation may be unjustifiable as a correction of a former 
version. 

42. "Have come" for " am come" = i Xr/XvOa. See xvi. 
28, and vi. 17, note. 

44. "A lie" = ro tpsvdos. In margin, orav XaX?j = 
"when one speaketh ;" cf. Heb. x. 28. 

45, 46. " The truth" = rrjv aXrjOsiav and aXrjdsiav 
alike. 

47. "The words of God" for "God's words;" why? 
" For this cause" for " therefore" = dia rovro : but see ix. 
23, etc., etc., and notes at v. 16 and 1 John iii. 1. 

50. "One that seeketh"=o £r/T(iov ; see " the sower," 
6 <j7tsipoov. If the absolute sen, " there is," is appealed to 
as making a difference in this and similar cases (as at v. 
45), then cf. "there shall be the weeping and gnashing," and 
Rom. xv. 12. 

51. " Word" for " saying" = Xoyov. (?) " See" = Ssgd- 
pr/ffrj : also at ix. 8. How happened they to forget " be- 
hold" ? 

52. "If a man keep" = sav TiS rrjprj(fr\, — not "shall 
keep," and so at x. 9 ; but see Matt. xxiv. 48, and Luke xii. 
38, 45, etc., where they carefully insert "shall." 

54. " Glory" for " honour" = doB,a. 

55. "If I should say" = sav sutoj, — "I shall be." But 
see Luke xvi. 30, 31, etc. 



ST. JOHN. 87 



IX. 

5. " I am the light" =<^g3; ei/M rov xoGpiov. See 1 Tim. 
vi. 10. 

6. "Thus spoken" = ravra BiTtoav. So also xi. 43; but 
cf. xi. 28, and Luke ix. 34. 

8. "Which saw" for "which had seen" = daaopovvTSS, — 
not " beheld." The pluperfect is not wrong. 

10. "They said therefore" for " therefore said they." So 
also at verse 16. What of it ? 

15. "Received" for "had received." But see verse 18. 
Can one explain why that should be pluperfect and not this ? 

17, 21. " In that" for " that" = on : " how" for " by what 
means" = 7Tg3?. In the last case the A. V. is plainly right; 
and perhaps "because" would be better in the other. 
" Opened" for " hath opened." (?) 

23. " Therefore" = Si a rovro. Sox. 17; cf. viii. 47, etc. 

24. "A second time" for " again" = ex devrepov : but 
does not it mean "again" if it means " a second time"? 
And ex Sevrepov they commonly render " the second 
time." 

27. "Told even now" for "have told already" = rfdt], (?) 
See Matt. xiv. 15. 

30. "The marvel"' for "a marvellous thing" = Qxv/4.a(T- 
ror ! ! 

31, 32. " Any man," "any one" = rz£. 

35. " Finding" for "when he had found" = evpoov. See 
vi. 11 (note) ; xi. 2S, 43, and Luke xv. 5 ; Acts xxi. 2, 3, 4, 
etc. 

37. " Speaketh" for " talketh" = \a\oov. 

38. " Lord, I believe" = niarevGD, uvpis. Cf. Matt. xxvi. 
25, "Is it I? Rabbi." 

39. "May see" for "might see" (present); "may be 
made" (not " may become") for " might be made" (aorist). 

X. 

1. " Fold of the sheep" for " sheepfold." 
4. " Hath put" for " putteth" = orav inf3a\r\. But the 
Revisers sometimes render this construction of the aorist 



88 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

subjunctive by the indicative present, as at Matt. xxiv. 32, 
33, and Mark xiii. 28, 29, and Heb. i. 6, etc. 
6. Understood = eyrooGav. See viii. 27. 

9. "Shall go in and go out and shall find," for "shall 
go in and out and find." Why not " shall go out," and 
finish it ? Which is the English idiom ? Do we not say 
" go in and out" rather than " go in and go out"? 

10. "That he may steal," etc., for "to steal," etc. = 
i'va nXtipy. But see verse 31 and iv. 34; v. 36, etc. 

12. "A shepherd" for " the shepherd." But 7toipi?jv is a 
predicate, and the hireling was probably "a shepherd," 
though not " the shepherd." " Snatcheth" for " catcheth ;" 
which does a wolf do most naturally ? 

19. " Words" for " sayings" = Xoyovi. 

21. "Sayings" for " words" = pr/piara, and so at xii. 
47, 48, — arbitrary faithfulness. They freely render pijfxa 
"word," as at Matt. iv. 4; 1 Pet. i. 24, 25, and here in 
John at iii. 34; v. 47; vi. 63, 68 ; viii. 20, 47; xiv. 10 ; xv. 
7 ; xvii. 8, 

24. " Hold us in suspense" for " make us to doubt" = 
*j:vxr/y rj^cov aipsi?. This is from the margin of the A. V. ; 
but which is the simpler and better translation ? We con- 
fess our judgment follows that of the forty-seven. 

28. Is " pluck" any more antiquated or unintelligible 
here than " we be" is at viii. 33 ? 

32. " Have I showed" = i'deiga : but 

36. "Sanctified" for "hath sanctified." "The Son of 
God;" why italicize "//^"just here? See Matt. iv. 3,6, 
etc., etc., etc. They print " Son" with a capital. 

38. " Though" = nav : changed to " even if " at viii. 14. 

39. u Went forth" for "escaped" — out of their hand. 

XI. 

3. "The sisters therefore" for "therefore his sisters." 
" The sisters" means "his sisters," and "therefore" means 
the same in one place as in the other. But again, 

6. "When therefore he heard" for "when he had heard 
therefore" = ooS ovv rjuovaev (he abode). 






ST. JOHN. 89 

7, 8. " The" for "his" (disciples); but see 41, etc., etc. 
"But now" for "of late" = vvv : i.e. "just now." We 
may as well insert " just" as "but," and make current Eng- 
lish, — if we must change. 

12. "Will recover" for "shall do well" = ffoodrfffsrai 
(" will get well" — colloquial). 

14. " Is dead" = arced ars. 

19. ''Console" for "comfort" = 7tapa^iv6rjffGovrai. 
But see verse 31. Why change here ? " Straightway" ! 

20. "When" for "as soon as" = co9. "Still sat'' for 
"sat still" == SKa6ii8,£T0. Cf. Acts xvii. 14. 

22. "Even now I know that" for " I know that even 
now." Is not the true sense more plainly expressed by the 
latter ? 

26. " Whosoever" = noc? 6, also at xvi. 2; elsewhere 
rendered " every one who," and the A. V. corrected accord- 
ingly/. Cf. Matt. v. 22, 28 ; Luke vi. 47, etc. 

27. "Even he that cometh" for "which should come" 
= 6 spxojuevo;. See Acts xix. 4. Why did they not ren- 
der in this last case " that came" or " was coming" ? 

28. " Said this" for " so said" = rovro einovGoc : but cf. 
ix. 6 ; xi. 43, etc. 

29. "Went" for " came" = yp^sro. But Jesus and not 
Mary is the centre of our thoughts. 

42. " Heardest" for "hast heard." "Around" for "by." 
" Didst send" for "hast sent." (?) 

43. " Loud" = pL8yaXr\ : but see Rev. v. 12, note. 

44. " Hand and foot" = rovi 7toSa? nod ra? x e ^P a? - So 
idiom goes for something; but see " the footstool of his 
feet," and u two witnesses or three," etc. 

46. " The things which" for " what things. " " Had done" 
= £noit)6Ev. 

50. " Take account" for " consider." Well? 

51. " Should die" (not "was about to die ") = s'/teWev. 
But see vi. 15. 

52. " Also/ ' out of place. In Greek it adds " the children" 
rather than the " gathering." 

53. " That they might" for " to" = i'va, etc., and so x. 10 ; 
but see verse 55 and iv. 34; v. 36; x. 32 ; xi. 19, 55, etc. 



90 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

In the modern Greek va (for ira) is the distinctive sign of 
the infinitive mood, — or of the substitute for it. 



XII. 

3. "Precious" for "costly" = nokvripLOv. The same 
sense, one in Latin, the other in Anglo-Saxon. 

4. The order changed so that, in the English, "which," 
that should refer to Judas, may by the ear be referred to 
the disciples; — note their punctilious carefulness at xi. 20. 

7. The margin, or the old text, to be preferred. The 
" anointing for the burial" was that in Bethany ; — see the 
other Gospels. 

14. " Having found" for " when he had found " = evpGov, 
— (not "finding" as at ix. 35). The construction of the A. 
V. here is the same as the Revisers have elsewhere substituted 
for another, see Acts xxi. 20, 32, etc., etc. 

16. They, with the A. V., render a pluperfect by " were 
written," and an aorist by " had done." 

19. "Behold" for "perceive" = decopEira : but see iv. 
19, where Osoopeoo is rendered "perceive." And then here 
i f de is rendered " lo" for "behold," although " behold " is, 
even with the Revisers, its customary meaning. "Is gone" 
= anr/XOev, — not " went away" or " departed." 

21. " These therefore came" for "the same came there- 
fore" = ovroi ouv. But at John i. 2, 7, and vii. 8, ovrol 
is rendered "the same." "Asked" for " desired" = 
tjpGOToov. Cf. Luke vii. 36, where they say "desired." 

27. " Is troubled" = rerapaxrai. 

35. "That . . . not" for " lest" = i'va }Arj : and so at 
Col. iii. 21, ii. 4; Phil. ii. 27; Heb. xi. 28. But they ren- 
der " lest" at verse 40 and Matt. xvii. 27, xxvi. 5 ; 1 Tim. 
iii. 7 ; Rev. xvi. 15, etc. What is the clew? 



40. " Perceive" for "understand" = voijaooffiv. (?) 
42. "Even" for "also" = xai. See Luke vii. 49 (note.) 
47, 48, 49. "Sayings" for " words" = prjpiara j and 
spake" for " have spoken." (?) 



ST. JOHN. 91 



XIII. 






2. "Already" for "now" = rfdrj : cf. ix. 27. 

11. " That should betray him" = rov 7tapa6idovta. 

14. " The Lord and the Master" for "your Lord and 
Master." Surely this is harsh English; and if faithfulness 
to the Greek article required it here, why did not they say 
also in verse 13, " ye call me the Master and the Lord " ? 
The Greek article is there also ; but English idiom seems 
to have prevailed. 

1, 3, 12, 14, 15. "Had given" = on Sedaoxsv : " had 
washed," etc. = ore e'viipev : "have washed" = ei iviipa : 
"have done" = 7te7toirjna and enoirjaa : and "have 
given" = i'dcoxa. Cf. ch. xvii. 

17. " Blessed" for "happy" = jiaxapioz. (?) 

18. " Lifted" for " hath lifted." (??) "Have chosen" = 

22, 29. "Spake" and "said" = Xeysi. 

27. " That thou doest" retained for o noiBiS : but see vi. 

37. 

31. "Is glorified" = edo^aaOrj. " When therefore he" 
for " therefore when he. " But the Revisers often begin a 
clause with " therefore ;" and it is a matter of English and 
not of Greek construction. 

38. "The cock" (no art.). Why not "no cock shall 

crow" 

XIV. 

2, 3. "A place for you" = ronov vjniv,and vjxiv ronov. 
Elsewhere such a change in the Greek is a great mystery. 

18. " Come" for " will come" = epxojAai. Butisnotthe 
meaning "will come"? and if "come" means the same in 
English, what sort of faithfulness required the change ? 

9. " Have been" = eipii. 

10. " From" for "of" (myself) ; cf. vii. 28 and xi. 51. 
7, 12, 19, and of. xv. 20. "My Father also," "he do 

also," "ye shall live also," "they will also persecute 
you." According to what appears to have been the punc- 
tilious rule of the Revisers for the construction of "also," 
the first (in verse 7) is right : but should not the others be 



92 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

"he also," " ye also," and "you also" (will they perse- 
cute) ? 

21. " He it is that" = enelvos £6tiv 6 : and so at v. 39; 
ix. 37; and at xiii. 26, £k£ivo$ eotiv go : cf. Matt. i. 21. 
Here we have the true use of the formula: "it is he that." 
It furnishes a subject common to two predicates. Thus, 
if you would know who shall betray me, it is he that re- 
ceiveth the sop; if you would know who loveth me. it is he 
that keepeth my commandments; who is the Son of God? 
it is he that speaketh with thee. But it is abundantly 
evident that no such reference can be attached to the avtoi 
in the angelic interpretation of the name Jesus in St. Mat- 
thew. The question, " Who shall save his people from 
their sins ?" the angel could not suppose to be present in 
the mind of Mary or of Joseph, nor the question " What 
else shall he do ?" And he could not have intended by his 
interpretation to answer any such inquiries. He must 
plainly have intended to furnish, not a subject to any given 
predicate at all, but a predicate to the given subject. The 
question was, " What shall this child be or do ?" And the 
answer was, " He himself (avroZ, not eneivo^ £ar\v 6) 
shall save his people from their sins;" /. ^., " he shall save 
them, and that by his own inherent and sufficient power." 
So that the rendering, "it is he that shall save his people 
from their sins," is illogical as well as paraphrastical. See 
also i. 30 and Phil. ii. 12. 

22. "What is come to pass?" for ''how is it ?"== rz 
yeyovev ; (" how is it come to pass?" or, "how is it 
done?" or, "how does it happen?" or, "how is it?") 

23. " Our abode" == juovi/v. Cf. Matt. xxvi. 27 and 1 Cor. 
xv. $&. 

26. " Said" for " have said" = einov : as at Matt, xxviii. 
20. Surely the A. V. is right. Did our Lord refer to say- 
ings in some indefinite past? Did he not include all down 
to the moment when he was speaking? The other changes 
in this verse are entirely unnecessary. 

27. "Fearful" for " afraid" = Sei A latoo. "Give I;" 
the order of the Greek is departed from. 

28. "Heard" for "have heard." (?) The repetition of 



ST. JOHN. 93 

" I" in this verse and the insertion of "he" in verse 30 
have no authority in the Greek, and how they are required 
by faithfulness it is hard to see. They seem to be the re- 
sult of a kind of sublimated hypercriticism. 

XV. 

2. " That beareth" == cpipov and to cpepov alike. 

4. " Except" = iav jxrf : — an ellipsis must be presumed, 
a j, " neither can it bear fruit at all ;" for the meaning can- 
not be that, if it abide in me it can bear fruit of itself . 

6. Two aorists are rendered as present. "A branch" = 
to xK.yjJLa. 

9. Two aorists are rendered as perfect. "Abide" for 
" continue." (?) 

15. "No longer" for "henceforth not" == ovx£ti } i.e* 
"not now" or "not now nor in future." Had he been 
accustomed to call them servants before? " Heard" for 
' ' have heard" = yxovo'a. But is it to be presumed that he 
had heard nothing from the Father since a certain indefinite 
moment in the past ? The Revisers cannot have inferred 
this from the mere aorist form of the verb, for they imme- 
diately add : " Have made known" = iyvoopiGa. 

17. " May love" for " love. " But is it not the substance 
rather than the end of the commandment that is referred 
to? If. i'va is appealed to, then say " should love," and not 
" may love ;" for it is a commandment. 

19. "Chose" for "have chosen ;" cf. xiii. 18. 

20. "A" for "the" (servant). Generic and aphoristic, 
therefore no article in Greek. It may have either article in 
English, as we cannot use it without any; but "the" is the 
better. 

XVI. 

4. "Is come" for "shall come" = eX#ft.- and so the 
A. V. at verse 13. But cf. Matt. ix. 15; xix. 28; xxi. 40; 
xxv. 31 ; and Mark ii. 20. 

7. " Go" for " depart. " There is a different word in the 
Greek for this "go" and for the two preceding (go away) ; 
there aniXQw, here rtopEvOoo. Would not " depart," there- 
fore, be better, for one or the other ? 



94 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

ii. "Hath been judged" for "is judged." Cf. "It is 
written," and see xii. 27. 

13. "All the truth," for "all truth;" why not then, 
" the Spirit of the truth," as well ? " The things that are 
to come" = ra epxojjsva : and so Rev. i. 4, S, not "the 
things that come." Cf. vi. 14 and xi. 27. "Is come" = 
orav eX6r) y and future following; but see vii. 31; Matt, 
xxi. 40, etc. 

21. "A woman" = rf yvvrj : "is born" = iyerrrjdrj^ so 
A. V. 

22. " And ye therefore now" for " and ye now therefore." 
Revising faithfulness. 

28. "Am come" = eXi]\v da : elsewhere changed to 
"have come," see vi. 17; viii. 42, etc. And cf. "is come" 
at verse 13. " Every man" = £xa6T0i. In such cases they 
generally put "one" for " man," and " each" for " every." 

XVII. 

3. " Him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ." 
The change of tense and construction in this classical pas- 
sage is entirely uncalled for. We have seen that the Re- 
visers have familiarly rendered the Greek aorists by the 
English perfect, and this very aniareika among the rest. 
But here, at verse 4, they put " glorified" for " have glori- 
fied ;" at 6, "manifested" for "have manifested;" at 8, 
"received," "knew," "believed," for "have," etc.; at 12, 
"perished" for "is lost;" at 14, "hated" for "hath 
hated;" at 25, "knew" three times, for "have known;" 
and at 26, "made" for "have made;" thus throwing all 
these acts out of connection with the (then) present 
into the indefinite past, as historical events which had 
taken place at some particular though indeterminate time, 
— as dead historical facts. Now the Revisers cannot, con- 
sistently with their own translation elsewhere, appeal to 
the mere form of the Greek aorist as settling the question 
in their favor. Neither can they appeal to the intermin- 
gling of Greek perfects with Greek aorists in this passage ; 
for at Acts xxv. 10, 11, "I have done" is for a Greek 
aorist, an J "I have committed" for a Greek perfect, in im- 



ST. JOHN. 95 

mediate succession ; and at Acts xxi. 21-24, and Rev. xviii. 
2, 3, the aorist and perfect of the very same verb are both 
rendered by the English perfect. At Phil. iii. 12 ; iv. 11, 
12, they have rendered an aorist and a perfect by the per- 
fect. And even in this very gospel at xiii. 14, 15, they ren- 
der " have washed" for an aorist, and " have given" for a 
perfect. Also at Matt. xxvi. 12, 13, the aorist of the same 
verb isf rendered first preterite and then perfect. The ques- 
tion here between the Authorized Version and the Revision 
must be settled by that sort of judgment of the context and 
of the nature of the case which any intelligent English 
reader is as well qualified to exercise as an equally intelli- 
gent Greek scholar. And we may add that the Revisers 
have against them the whole English Hexapla, Luther's 
German, De Sacy's French, Diodati's Italian, and almost 
all, if not all of the former translations from the Greek ; 
and let it not be forgotten that no appeal will lie here to 
any modern discoveries in Greek grammar or to any mys- 
teries recently laid open in regard to the Greek aorist tense. 
Cf. further, Mark v. 19 ; Heb. xii. 4, 5, etc. 

21,23. "May all" for "all may;" "perfected" for 
"made perfect." Revising faithfulness. 

24. Even the change of text will scarcely justify the man- 
gling of this verse, which is made so harsh and discordant to 
the English ear, — and to the English mind. 

XVIII. 

4. "Were coming" for "should come" = ipxo}JLBva. 
Why did they not say "came" ? See vi. 14 and cf. xvi. 13 • 
also vi. 15 and 71. 

6. "When therefore" for "as soon then as" = go? ovv : 
" said" for " had said." (?) 

9. " Lost" for "have lost." (?) 

10. "Struck" for "smote." Faithfulness. Cf. Luke 
xxii. 50, etc. 

13." High priest" for " the high priest" — a predicate ; and 
what's the difference ? but, "faithfulness" ! The A. V., for- 
sooth, was ignorant of the use of the Greek article. Cf. 
xix. 7, Acts x. 42, etc. 



96 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

2:>. "Synagogues" for "the synagogue." Their own 
text has Gvvayooyfj : but what is a question of number to 
that of the article ? 

30. " Evil-doer" for " malefactor" = KanonoioS. Plainly 
the word is here to be understood in its legal, or criminal, 
sense. Cf. Luke xxiii. 32, 33, where they render xanovpyoi 
" malefactors." 

31. "Yourselves" for "ye" = V}aeT$ : and so at xix. 6. 
Who is most "faithful" ? 

3$. " Delivered" for " have delivered ;" but immediately 
"hast thou done" renders an aorist. 

38. " Crime" for u fault" = airia : and at xix. 4, 6. 

XIX. 

2, 5. "Garment" for " robe" — ijuariov — with "pur- 
pie." (?) 

4, 5. "Out" for "forth" = e^ffX^sv : and so at verses 
13, 17, and xxi. 3. But cf. Acts ii. 17. 

6. "When therefore the chief priests and the officers" 
for " when the chief priests, therefore, and officers." How 
momentous these changes ! 

10, 11. Power = f^oufr/o' — not "authority." "Greater 
sin" for "the greater sin;" but, at verse 8, "the more" = 
judXXov, — no art. 

12. "Release" for "let go." But cf. Acts iv. 23. 

18. "Others" for "other." But cf. xxi. 2; Acts xvii. 
18. 

19. "There was written" for "the writing was" = 
ijv yeypafxjxlrov. Now the simple reader will not only 
understand the meaning, but will know how the Greek 
says it. 

31. "On" for "upon," and ''upon" for "on;" and 
" the day of that sabbath" for "that Sabbath day." Ex- 
quisite and untiring faithfulness ! Think of each of these 
being solemnly put to a two thirds vote! "Asked" for 
" besought" = r/poorr/aav : and so, verse 38 ; but cf. xvi. 26. 

39. "He who" for " which" = o (eX^oov) ; cf. iii. 13; 
Matt. vi. 4, etc., etc. 

40. " Custom" for "manner." (?) 



ST. JOHN. 97 

42. A needless and bungling rearrangement, spoiling the 
flow and cadence without improving or even altering the 
sense of the passage. Compare this faithfulness with that 
e.g. at Acts xx. 25, 31. If the Revisers would make these 
changes they were bound to be consistent, and to give us 
the Greek construction always. 

XX. 

3. "Went toward" for "came to" = r/pxovro 6 is : but 
cf. Acts xxviii. 14. And why did they not say "were 
going," as at vi. 17 ? 

5. "Stooping, he" for "He, stooping." (?) 

5, 6, 8. "Entered in" for "went in" = eiarjX^ev. But 
cf. Acts xxi. 26, "went into" =si6r\ei. Does not epxo/j.ai 
signify "go," as well as eipii ? The Revisers do not hesitate 
so to render it, and to correct the A. V. at the same time ; 
see verse 3, and xi. 29. 

6, 7, 12, 14. By comparing these verses it will appear that 
$EGoptGo means the same as fiXirtGQ or eidov, and no more. 
" When she had said" =ei7tov(ja. 

23. " Forgive" for " remit" =acpfjre. Well? 

27. " See" for "behold" = ids. " Behold" can take an 
accusative in English as well as "see ;" and it does not ap- 
pear that ids changes its meaning according to the case fol- 
lowing. But faithfulness — to SecopeGj, "behold" ! 

XXI. 

1. "He manifested himself on this wise" for "on this 
wise showed he himself." (?) 

2. "Two other" =aXXoi 6vo. Cf. xix. 18. 

3. "Come" for " go" = Spxo/iai. Cf. xx. 3. "Took" 
for " caught" =irtia6av .- so at verse 10. 

4. "Beach" for " shore" = aiyiak ov. It was certainly 
a "shore," whether it was properly a " beach" or not. 

8. "Of fishes" = tgov ix$vcov .• but see "the weeping 
and gnashing." 

9. " Got out upon the land," for " were come to land"= 
aitLfirfaav £z's rr}v yrjv — simply they "landed," or "had 
landed." 



98 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

12. " Break your fast," for " dine" = apiatf'](jars i i.e. 
"dine" or " breakfast;" and the same at verse 15. The Re- 
visers translate apitfrov, "dinner," at Matt. xxii. 4 ; Luke 
xi. 38, and xiv. 12 ; and, at Luke xi. 37, they translate 
api<7T?jGt] f "dine." Indeed, apiarov has no more to do 
with " breaking a fast" than every meal must have, from 
the nature of the case; and our very word "dine," from 
"diner," " disner" is not unlikely of the same origin as 
" dejedner, " to breakfast. As to the time of the day at which 
this meal was taken, we cannot say exactly at what time it 
was. It seems likely it was early. But we cannot 
make much account of the proper hour of " dining," when 
a London dinner may be taken at from eight to twelve 
o'clock at night. 

12, 24. "Inquire" for " ask" = i&eraGai : " beareth wit- 
ness" for " testifieth;" "witness" for " testimony." Con- 
sequential. 



ACTS. 
I. 

2. 11, 22. "Received up" for "taken up" = avsXr/cpSrj ; 
and so the A. V. at Mark xvi. 19. The word may be ren- 
dered either way. From the Latin it is "assumption" — 
a taking up or taking to one's self. At verse 9 they had 
better have said " lifted up" for " taken up" = enr/pS?]. Cf. 
Matt. xvii. 8 ; where they so render. 

3. " Proofs" for " infallible proofs" = T6H/x?}pia. Lex., 
"sure signs or tokens," "demonstrative proofs." 

4. "Charged" for " commanded " = 7tcxpi]yyzik£v. So 
also at iv. 18; v. 28, 40; xvi. 18, etc., etc. But cf. xvii. 30; 
Mark viii. 6; Luke ix. 21; viii. 29 (and compare this last 
with Acts xvi. 18), etc., etc. Faithfulness illustrated. 

6. " They therefore, when they were come together, 
.asked," for "when they therefore were come together, 
they asked." But cf. again Matt. viii. 12; ix. 12; xi. 2; 
xii. 24; Luke ix. 47; xxiii. 6, 8; John xxvi. 14, etc. See 
•Luke vii. 4 (note). 



ACTS. 99 

ii. " Which was received up" for " which is taken up" = 
6 avockrjqtdsiS. But cf. Matt. ii. 2, 6 T££0£z's="he that is 
born," etc., etc. 

12. Why did they not say "a mountain, even the mountain 
which"? Cf. Gal. ii. 20. 

14, 19. Order changed contrary to the Greek. 

16. " It was needful that .... should be" for " must 
needs have been" = i'Sei. But cf. John iv. 4 ; Heb. ix. 26, 
etc. — "must needs," "must." 

17. " His portion" = rov xXr/pov. Elsewhere, in similar 
cases, they often carefully put "the" for "his.' 

18. " Received " for " obtained " = i'Xaxs (not i%aj3e). 
" Obtained " for " purchased" = inr-qaaro. (?) 

19. The order is here changed without need and contrary 
to the original. Truly these Revisers are hard to please. 
If the A. V. departs from the order of the Greek they 
change it ; if it follows the order of the Greek they change 
it, — and always from sheer "faithfulness." 

1 ' Akeldama' ' for ' 'Aceldama." Anywhere else one would 
call this pedantry; here it is only "faithfulness." The 
English has become accustomed to the Latin spelling of 
such names ; and what is gained by change? Besides, one 
who changes is bound to be consistent. Why then did 
they not say " Kephas" ? 

21. " Of the men therefore ..... of these" for " where- 
fore of these men. ' ' The A. V. gives the simple English con- 
struction, and that quite as near the Greek as the Revision is. 
And how much does "wherefore" differ from "therefore"? 
In the original there is for " these' ' only an article ; and yet 
the Revisers by their dislocation render it emphatic. 
" Went in and went out" for " went in and out ;" which is 
the English for the repeated or customary action ? 

23. " Put forward' ' for " appointed" = i'arrfGocv. Cf. xix. 
33 ; also Matt. xxvi. 15. 

24. "The one" = eva. Cf. Matt. vi. 24; Luke xvi. 13. 

25. "The place in this ministry and apostleship, from 
which," for "part of this ministry and apostleship, from 
which" = rov ronov (old text xXrjpov) rrji diaxoviaS 
ravrrjS uai anofDroXys acp (old text ££;) 77s, Here " min- 



ioo NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

istry," etc., is in the genitive (not " in," therefore, but " of"), 
and "from which" should refer not to "the place," but to 
"ministry," etc.; so that the new version would be mis- 
understood, for it grammatically means " the place which." 
This is the effect in English of the article introduced from 
their new text before "place." 

II. 

2. "Of the rushing of a mighty wind," for " of a rushing 
mighty wind" = cpepopievtjs 7tvoi)S fiiazat. Here the A. V. 
is literally exact to a hair's breadth. What is the key to 
the Revisers' "faithfulness"? 

3. "Parting asunder" for "cloven" = 8iafAepi8,6^.evai. 
Here the sense remains substantially the same. The only 
question is, whether the participle is to be conceived of as 
middle or passive. The Revisers take the former and the 
A. V. the latter ; but the Revisers have themselves rendered 
it as passive at Luke xi. 17, 18 ; xii. 52, 53. The Septuagint 
use it as middle ; but its active form and use are found 
both in the classical and N. T. Greek ; see verse 45. 

6, 8. Why did they not say, after the Greek, "they, every 
man," " how do we, every man," and so avoid the ambiguity 
in the latter verse ? That might have b^en an object worthy 
of their revisional faithfulness. 

11. " Mighty works" for " wonderful works" = /xeyaXeia 
(= "grand or magnificent things"). But greatness is no 
more nearly related to might than to wonder. Cf. 6vva/i£iS, 
"mighty works." 

12. " Perplexed" for " in doubt" — 6z?j7t6povv. Which 
is the simpler and the more strictly, and even etymologi- 
cally, correct? So at v. 24 and x. 17. 

14. "Spoke forth, saying," for "said" = aneqjQty^aro 
(= " said plainly"). 

17. " Pour forth" for "pour out"= exceed. But see x. 45 
and cf. John ii. 15 ; xix. 4, 5, etc. 

26. " My heart was glad and my tongue rejoiced" for 
" my heart did rejoice and my tongue was glad." How 
wondrous nice \ 



ACTS. ioi 

28. " Gladness" for "joy" = Evq>po6vvrf. " Madest" for 
" hast made." (?) 

32. " Did raise up" for " hath raised up." (?) 
36. "Let all the house of Israel therefore" for "there- 
fore let," etc. lids oiuoZ = "all the house;" cf. Eph. 
iii. 13. 

46. "At home" for "from house to house" = Mar' 
oikov (so, marg. of A. V.) ; but just above and below, 
" day by day" = ;*:<x^ tf/t£pav=A. V. " daily." 

47. " Those that were being saved' ' for " such as should be 
saved" = rov$ GooZojuevovs = " those that were saved" or 
"that should be saved." So also they render at 1 Cor. i. 
18; 2 Cor. ii. 15. But cf. Luke xiii. 23, "they that be 
saved;" also, John xiii. 11, "him that should betray him" 
= rov napadidovra. 

III. 

6. " That" = rovro — not " this." 

12. "Fasten ye your eyes" for "look ye so earnestly" 
= arevi2,ere. But cf. i. 10; xxiii. 1 — " looking stedfastly." 

13. " Release" for " let go." Cf. iv. 23. 

14. " Asked for" for " desired" = rjTTfffaffSs. Cf. Luke 
vii. 36. 

16. "Hath made strong;" "hath given;" both for 
aorists. 

18. ''Foreshowed" for "before had shewed" = Ttpoua- 
rrjyyeiXs. " Fulfilled" for " hath fulfilled"— aorist. (?) 

21. " Spake" for "hath spoken" — aorist. 

22,23. u To him shall ye hearken" for "him shall ye 
hear" = aKovffeffOe. If there is any ambiguity in the A. V., 
there is the same in the Greek. "Speak" for "say" = 
XaAjyGri. (?) 

24. " Them that followed after" for "those that follow 
after' ' = ro3r KaOegrfZ. The distinction is not in the Greek 
at all events — either that of the tense, or of the " them" and 
" those." " Told" for " have (fore) told." (?) 

IV. 

2. " Sore troubled" for " grieved" = Sia7tovov/t£voi. (?) 
" Proclaimed" for " preached" = narayyiXXeiy. (?) 



102 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

12. " And in none other is there salvation" for "neither 
is there salvation in any other." "Neither is there any 
other name" for " there is none other name." In the last 
their text is ovdi for ovre. 

13 " Had perceived" for" perceived" = KaraXa/3ojx8voi. 
Cf. the reverse change at John ix. 35, etc., etc. Cf. Xafioov 
at Matt. xxv. 20. 

14. "Seeing" for " beholding" = j3Xe7tovres (=" look- 
ing at"). Cf. Matt. vii. 3 ; Luke vi. 41 ; 1 Cor. x. 18 ; Col. 
ii. 5 ; Rev. xvii. 8, in all which they render " behold;" also 
Rev. xi. 9 ; xviii. 9, where they put " look upon" for " see;" 
and 1 Cor. i. 26, where they put "behold" for "see" ! 

16, 22. " Miracle" = orjjxnov. It is difficult to dispense 
with the received English words when one is making an 
English translation ; — " Si furca expellas." 

18. " Charged" for " commanded." See i. 4 (note) ; and 
1 Tim. i. 3 (note). 

20. "Saw and heard" for " have seen and heard." (?) 
"Was wrought" for "was showed" = iyeyovei (= " had 
been done," see verse 30). 

23. " Being let go" = artoXvOevrsS (== " having been let 
go"). But see iii. 13 and John xix. 12 ("released"); and 
see verse 13 for the tense. 

24. "And they, when they heard it," for "and when they 
heard it, they." See i. 6 (note). "The heaven and the 
earth, the sea," for "heaven and earth, the sea." See Rev. 
ix. 1 ; Matt. xxiv. 35, etc. 

28. "Foreordained" for "determined before" = npo <gj- 
piae. Which is the more faithful to the very etymology 
of the Greek word ? "To come to pass" for "to be done" 
= yevia6ai. Cf. verse 30, where they render yivetfdai 
"to be done." Does the tense change the sense? 

29. "Look upon" for " behold" = i'mSe. What's the 
difference ? But the Revisers have a consequential rever- 
ence for OeoopbGD before their eyes. 

30. " While thou stretchest forth" for " by stretching 
forth" = iv rep, h.t.X. Why not say, " in stretching forth" ? 

35. "Each" for "every man" = ixaffrcp. Cf. John 
xvi. 2S. 



ACTS. 103 

36. " Son" for " the son." But what's the difference in 
a title? See their own usage at i. 19; Matt. iii. 3; John 
xix. 19, etc. Would they not have done better to have re- 
tained " consolation" in the text, and relegated "exhorta- 
tion" to the margin? But this is a question, not of Greek 
authority, but of private judgment. The decision sug- 
gested has the A. V. to sustain it. 

V. 

17. "Jealousy" for "indignation" = £r/\ov. 

iS. " Public ward" for "the common prison" — rr/pr/6£i 
dr/juo6ia. This is nearer the Greek etymology, but less 
intelligible in English. 

20. " Go ye and stand" for "go stand." No vjaeiS (ye) 
and no xai (and) in the Greek; for the uai in the text 
connects " speak" and not "stand" with "go." Faithful- 
ness? 

31. "Did exalt" for "hath exalted." (?) 

33. "They, when they heard," for "when they heard, 
they." See i. 6 (note). 

42. "At home" = Mar oixov, for "in every house.'' 

But xar oi'xovS they render "from house to house," Acts 

xx. 20; and iv olxcp they render "at home," 1 Cor. xi. 

34, and xiv. 35. 

VI. 

" Therefore" for "wherefore" — needless change. " May 
appoint" = KaTa6rr]60}j.8v (future). 

4. Why this change ? IIpo6xapr£p/j6o/usv may as well 
mean " we will give ourselves continually to," as " we will 
continue stedfastly in." 

7. " Exceedingly" for " greatly" = 6cpodpa. Exceeding 
faithful ! 

15. " Fastening their eyes" for "looking stedfastly" = 
ar6ri6avrss. But see vii. 55 and xxiii. 1, where they ren- 
der " looking stedfastly" ! And whence the " eyes" ? 

VII. 

4. " Wherein" = eis r)v } not " whereinto." 

5. "In possession" for " for a possession" = eii Kara6- 
X£6ir. (?) See verse 45 and the Septuagint. 



104 NOTES ON 7 "HE LATE REVISION. 

20. " Three months in his father's house" for " in his 
father's house three months." The English naturally puts 
the designation of place before that of time ; but the Revisers 
are apt to follow the Greek. 

22. What need of inserting " he" ? 

28. The "wilt" and the " didst" of the A. V. are idio- 
matic English. For the former see John v. 21, 40. 

35. Why did they not say here " an angel's hand, even the 
angel that appeared" ? There is no article in the Greek 
till we come to the participle. Cf. 2 Tim. ii. 24, and par- 
ticularly Gal. ii. 20 ; also cf. Rev. viii. 4, and x. 8, 10, for 
the articles. 

44. "Appointed" for "had appointed." Cf. 2 Cor. viii. 5. 

VIII. 

5. " Proclaimed" for " preached" = ixrjpvGaev .• so also 
at ix. 20. But cf. xv. 21 ; 1 Cor. i. 23 ; Phil. i. 15, etc. 

23. "Art in" = ei€ ovra • and note articles. 

39. "When they came" for "when they were come." 
Whether in English we should use the preterite or the plu- 
perfect in such cases is not determined by the Greek tense, 
but depends upon whether we conceive the two actions 
compared to be synchronous or consecutive. It is not 
Greek scholarship therefore, whether ancient or modern 
that is to decide the question, but good common sense 
Cf. the translation of the Revisers at xi. 2, "was come' 
(but see Gal. ii. 11, 12); Mark vii. 17, "was entered;' 
Luke xxii. 14, "was come" (but see John iv. 45, "came") 
John xiii. 3, " was gone ;" xxi. 15, "had broken;" Rev. 

v. 8, "had taken." 

IX. 

3. " Out of heaven" = ex rov ovpavov. "The earth" 
immediately follows. For the article cf. iv. 24 ; vii. 49 ; x. 
11, etc. ; and for the preposition cf. xi. 5 ; Matt. xvi. 1 ; 
xxviii. 2 ; John iii. 31 ; Rev. viii. 10, ix. 1 ; x. 4, 8 ; xi. 12 ; 
xiv. 2, 13, etc. 

7. " Beholding" for " seeing" = OeaopovvTES. But it is 
here opposed to " hearing ;" and cf. xix. 26 and xxi. 20, 
where they render the same verb by " see. ' 



ACTS. 105 

11. " To the street" for "into" = ini, i.e. "upon" or 
" along." " Into" is nearer than " to." 

13. " Did" for " hath done." (?) 

14. " Upon" for " on ;" but cf. verse 21. Who can keep 
up with the versatilities and niceties of revisional " faithful- 
ness" ? 

15. Why did they not say, " Gentiles and kings," etc. ? 
There is no article in the Greek. 

18. "As it were" for "as it had been" = c&ffei. So also at 
x. 11 ; but cf. vi. 15, where they render "as it had been." 

20. The order needlessly changed. " Proclaimed" for 
" preached" = iurjpvGGev. See viii. 5 (note). 

27. Order changed. What trifling! Cf. xv. 2, xx. 25, etc. 

31. " Being edified" for " and was (were) edified." (?) 

34. " Healeth" for "maketh whole." Cf. xiv. 9. What 
is the logical, or etymological, or practical difference be- 
tween " healing" and "making whole" ? 

41. For the change of construction compare this and x. 
8, 17 with xxvi. 31, etc., etc. 

X. 

I. " Byname" for "called" = ovojxari .• also viii. 9. But 
this is not adhered to elsewhere. Better say " named," as 
the Revisers do at Luke i. 5, v. 27, x. 38, xvi. 20, xxiii. 50 ; 
Acts v. 1, 34, ix. 12, xxiii. 36, etc., etc. 

4. Construction changed without improvement. The 
seeing was the cause of the fearing. 

5. "Fetch" for "call for" = pLeranefxipai : but see 
verses 22, 29, xxiv. 26, and cf. xvi. 37. To " send for" and 
to "fetch" are commonly different things; and after 
" send," already used, repetition was unnecessary, and 
" call for" is near enough to the sense. 

8. " Rehearsed" for " declared" = ££,r]yr)6(X}izvoi. (?) 
10. "Hungry" for "very hungry" = npoomivoz. (?) 

" Desired to eat' ' for " would have eaten." But cf. xiv. 13, 

where they render " would have." 

II. " The heaven" for "heaven;" but cf. verse 16 and 
xi. 5, 9, 10, where " heaven" is rendered without the article 
which is in the Greek. 



106 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION 

30. 'Apparel" for "clothing" = iadtftu (!) 

3$. " Have been" for " are" (commanded). But see " it 
is written," etc., etc., and especially John xii. 27. 

42. " To be the judge;" no article in the Greek. Cf. 
John xviii. 13. 

45. " Poured out ;" but cf. ii. 17, where they correct the 
A. V. and render "pour forth." 

XI. 

5, 6. "From heaven" and "of the heaven" = rov ovpa- 
vov : and "fowls" for their "birds" elsewhere. 9. " A 
voice out of heaven," and so at Matt. iii. 17 ; Mark i. 11 ; 
Luke iii. 22 ; but at Rev. x. 4, 8, xi. 12, xiv. 2, 13, they say 
"a voice from heaven." 

14. The repetition of " thou" here and at xvi. 31 is neither 
required nor authorized by its being expressed in the Greek. 
We cannot follow the Greek construction, but, if we would 
bring out the number of the Greek verb, we might say, 
" thou shalt be saved and all thy house." 

XII. 

10. "The first" = 7tpojr?jv .- " the second" = Sevrepav. 
Cf. Matt. xxii. 39. — No article. 

21. Construction changed for the worse, and not required 
by the slight change in the text. " The throne" for " his 
throne" is an inconsistency. 

22. "The voice of a God" = Beov (pcsov?}. Cf. Matt, 
xxvii. 54, margin (note) ; say " the son of a God." 

XIII. 

12. "Teaching" for " doctrine" = difiaxfh — nere liable 
to be misunderstood. 

19, 20. The text which the Revisers have adopted here is 
difficult to reconcile with accepted facts. 

36. The margin is better: "served his generation." 
There ought to be very cogent reasons for abolishing the 
Scripture authority for this phrase. The antiquated " fell 
on sleep" is retained. May not unlearned readers stumble 
over it ? 



ACTS. 107 

46. " Spake out boldly and said" for " waxed bold and 
said" = 7tappr}6iaaa}A£voi ei7tov. But cf. 1 Thess. ii. 2, 
where they say "waxed bold." 

XIV. 

3. " Bare witness" for " gave testimony" = ^.aprvpovvn 
— consequential. " To be done" = yiveeQai. 

5. " Onset" for " assault" = opfxrf. This is a new word ; 
is it needed? " Treat shamefully" for "use despitefully" 
= v/3pi(?ai. The A. V. is the more accurate. There is no 
" shame' ' in the word at all. Cf . Luke xx. 1 1 , where " handle 
shamefully" is for aTiptr/Garre?, and rightly. 

6. The change of construction makes the sense ambiguous, 
for Lycaonia might be supposed to be the name of a city 
as well as Derbe and Lystra. The Revisers do not 
always follow the Greek ; as cf. Acts xx. 25. 

9. "Fastening his eyes upon" for " stedfastly behold- 
ing" = areviaaS. Cf. vii. 55, xxiii. 1; 2 Cor. iii. 7, 13. 

13. "Whose temple' for "which" = rov. This is a 
paraphrase instead of a translation, and, besides, it expresses 
what, from the text, is at least uncertain as a matter of 
fact. They should have said, " the priest of the Jupiter 
which was," etc. It may have been a statue and not a 
temple of Jupiter which was before the gate ? 

15. " The heaven," etc. See iv. 24, (note). 

19. Construction of " thither" ? Did faithfulness require 
the omission of " certain ' ? It was confessedly not expressed 
in the original, 

26. " Had fulfilled" for " fulfilled" = £7t\rjpGD(jav. (?) In 

verse 23 the change of " believed" to " had believed" 

is right. 

XV. 

2. " Certain other of them." Cf. Luke x. 1. "Should 
go up" is not in the order of the Greek ; cf. ix. 27. 

10. "That ye should put" for " to put." The latter is 
literal from the Greek, and is idiomatic English as well as 
quite intelligible here. Cf. Heb. vi. 10. The Revisers often 
put the infinitive instead of the construction with iva {that) 
in the original, as at John iv. 34 ; v, 36 ; xi. 19, 55. 



ioS NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

ii. Here the construction is changed, though the A. V. 
follows the order of the Greek. 
1 6. What need of the extra " I" ? 

21. " Preach him" = nrjpvaaoo avrov. Cf. viii. 5. 

22. "Seemed good" for "it pleased." (?) 

22, 25. "To choose men" for "chosen men" = £K\e!?,a- 
fAtvovS avdpaS. The A. V. " faithfully" follows the Greek 
construction, and if there is any ambiguity in the English 
there is the same in the Greek. 

23. It should be (a la grecque), "The apostles and the 
elders, brethren." For " apostles and elders," cf. verses 2 
and 22, and xvi. 4. 

20 and 29. Compare these verses for the use of the article 
in Greek. 

36. " Proclaimed" for " preached." (?) " How they fare" 
for " how they do" = n g5; i'xovai. (?) 

XVI. 

3. "Would have" = i]dt\i)6ev, and so at xiv. 13. But 
cf. Luke xix. 14. 

12. Construction bungling. The A. V. is nearer the 
Greek after all, only putting "that" for rr/S. They make 
" the first" = 7tf)GDT?i ; and so, marg. of A. V. 

37. "Men that are Romans" for " being Romans" = 
r Pojj.iatovi V7tapx ovr£ ^- ll Cast out" for " thrust out ;" 
"bring" for "fetch." (?) 

39. " Asked them to go away from the city" for " desired 
them to depart from the city." (The text for " depart" is 
changed from i^eXSelv to aneXOeiv ano.) What a won- 
drous elevation and vigor of style ; — " asked them to go 
away from the city" ! At the end of the chapter they say 
they "departed;" and at John xii. 36, they render aireXOoov 

" departed." 

XVII. 

2. " Sabbath days" = 2d/3/3ara. Elsewhere they have 
omitted the " day." 

3. "It behoved" for "must needs have" =s'd£i. So 
Luke xxiv. 26 ; but cf. Mark xiv. 31 ; John iv. 4 ; Heb. ix. 
36, etc., etc. "The Christ" for "Christ/' (?) 



ACTS. 109 

5. " Rabble" = ayopaioi — " hangers on about the mar- 
ket." For the change of construction, compare Matt. xxvi. 
26, 27, etc. They have no more right, in faithfulness, to 
consult variety in rendering the same constructions, than in 
rendering the same words. 

13. ''Proclaimed" for " preached." (?) 

16. "Full of idols" for "given to idolatry" = iiarsi- 
daokov. So the A. V. in margin. Whose judgment is to be 
preferred ? 

18. " Would" for " will" =Oe\€z. (?) " Other some- 
archaism retained, instead of simply saying, " others" = 

01 6e. 

22. " Somewhat superstitious" for " too superstitious" = 
dei(7i3aijj.ov£(?T£povZ. Is this the sense of the comparative 
absolute — softened even below the simple positive ? Cf. 

2 Pet. i. 19 ; Heb. xiii. 19, 23 ; John xiii. 27 ; 2 Cor. viii. 17. 

23. " An unknown God" for " The unknown God." Cf. 
Luke xxiii. 33 ; John xix. 17 ; Acts i. 19 ; Heb. xii. 22, and 
names and titles generally. Did the Athenians dedicate 
their altar to any one among the '* unknown gods," or 
rather to some definite, particular, though as yet " unknown, 
God" — one of whom they had a sort of presentiment? 

XVIII. 

15. "Am not minded to be" for "will be no." The 
A. V, gives the sense of the Greek simply, accurately, and 
without ambiguity. 

20. "Asked" for " desired" = spoor govt gov. At Luke 
vii. 36, they render the word " desired." 

24. Order changed for the Greek ; but the A. V. has the 
logic. 

25. "Carefully" for " diligently" = aKpifidbZ .- and 26, 
for " perfectly." Should these not be " clearly" in verse 25, 
and " more accurately" in the 26th ? 

XIX. 

4. "That should come"= rov s'pxo/tsvov — not "that 
came." Cf. Luke vii. 20, etc. 

22. " While" for " season"= xpovov. (?) 



no NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

26. " See"=0£jjps7T8, with " hear ;" but cf. ix. 7, where 
they render " behold. " 

29. The Greek order here is no improvement to the Eng- 
lish, and makes no change in the sense. " Was minded to" 
for "would have" = /3ov\6/tevo$ with aorist. (?) 

32. " In confusion" for " confused" = Gvyxsxvjxtvi-/ .• plu~ 
perfect passive; for which, "was confused" may stand, 
but "was in confusion" may not. The Revisers, it seems, 
feel at liberty to depart from the strict Greek construction 
when they think they can correct the A. V. in so doing. 
But note their scrupulosity at verse 29 and at xviii. 24. 
''Were come" = e\i]XvQeiaav : elsewhere, we have seen, 
they render " had come." Did faithfulness require this di- 
versification ? 

35. "Temple keeper" for " worshipper" = vscoKopov. 
This is from the margin of the A. V., and, but for a spice 
of pedantry, might have been left there. 

38. "That" for "which." Did faithfulness require the 
change ? 

39. "The regular" for "a lawful" = rfj evvojjcp. (?) 
What is a substantive or an adjective to an article ? 

40. " And as touching it"= mp\ ov. But "it" must 
refer to " riot" = GtaGEGos, above, which is feminine. Both 
the text and their translation of this verse are very con- 
fused. 

XX. 

2. "Gone through" for "gone over." (?) 

3. "Determined" for " purposed" = eyivero yvajjurf — 
"was minded' ' ? 

9. " Borne down" and " being borne down"= jcaracpepo- 
j.ievoZ and xarevexOels. 

18. "Set foot in" for "came into"=67tt/3^v eh. So 
also at xxi. 4 ; but cf. xxv. 1. 

19. "Lowliness" for " humility." (?) 

24. The text is changed. " I hold not my life of any ac- 
count as dear unto myself." Is it not rather, "the life 
which is dear unto myself I hold of no account" ? 

27. " The whole counsel" for" all the counsel"= na6av 
rr)v fiovXrjv. But the Revisers have not only rendered na$ 



ACTS. ill 

d and 7ta<?a rj by "all the" in innumerable cases, but they 
have put "all the city" for "the whole city" at Matt. viii. 
34. (Cf. Acts xiii. 44, where they say " the whole city") ; 
" all the multitude" for " the whole multitude" [" stood" — 
"were on"] at Matt. xiii. 2 and Mark iv. 1 ; "all the mul- 
titude" for "the whole multitude" ["sought"] at Luke vi. 
19 (cf. Luke i. 10, "The whole multitude were praying," 
and Acts vi. 5, " The saying pleased the whole multitude") ; 
and " all the earth" for " the whole earth," at Luke xxi. 35. 
34. " Ye yourselves know" = avroi yivGoGxers. And 
so the A. V., and so right. But cf. verse 18, where they 
put " ye yourselves" for " ye' ' = vjueis iniaTaaOe. " Mirr 
istered" for "have ministered;" but in verse 28, "hath 
made" (aorist), while most of the aorists in this connection 
are rendered by the simple preterite. 

XXI. 

1. "The next day" for " the day following" =rrj SHr/S. 
Cf. iii. 24. 

2,4. "Having found" for " finding" =svp6vT€S, fol- 
lowed by an aorist verb ; cf. John ix. 35. 

3. " Leaving it, we" for " we left it and" = HaraXiTtovTeZi 
also followed by an aorist verb. 

5. " Kneeling, we" for "we kneeled and," — an aorist 
participle again, followed by an aorist verb, as at verses 2, 
3, and 4. Also at verse 8, " entering, we" for " we entered 
and;" and at verse 11, "coming, and taking, he" for 
"when he was come, he took and." Compare all these 
with the correction at verses 2 and 4. 

9. "Now this man" for "and the same man" = rovr op 
SL But cf. John i. 2, 7, etc. 

21. " They have been informed" for " they are informed." 
This is the translation of the aorist HarrfXV^V ffay ', but even if 
it had been of a perfect, the change would have been uncalled 
for (cf. "it is written"). And it is striking that the Re- 
visers have given the very same translation for the aorist 
here, which, at verse 24, they have given for the perfect of 
this same verb, narr]xv yrai ' see also Rev. xviii. 2, 3. 
"Telling" for " saying" = A kyoov. The construction of 



2 12 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

the A. V. is nearer the Greek; "telling them" would re- 
quire avrovl to be avtoiS. For " saying that they ought 
not," in the A. V., cf. Gal. v. 7 ; Heb. iv. 6 ; and especially 
Rev. x. 9, where they give us " saying unto him that he 
should give" = XtyoDv avrcp dovvai — thus retaining 
'' saying" even though the dative follows, and the accusa- 
tive with the infinitive has to be supplied. Why did they 
not say "telling him to give"? Of that text, that would 
have been the simple and direct translation. But that 
text was new, and so they had no opportunity to snub the 
A. V. with one of their faithful improvements in the Eng- 
lish translation. 

25. " Wrote" for " have written." (?) 

26. "Went into" for "entered into" =ei&tf6i €i£. Cf. 
Matt. x. 12; Luke xi. 33, etc. Is there any reason why 
eiasijii should not mean "enter" as well as Eiatpxojxai 
and eianopevofj-ai, both which are also freely translated 
"come" and " go" as well as " enter" ? Also at verse 18. 

24. "Moreover" for "further." (?) "Defiled" for 
"polluted." (?) 

32. "And they, when they" for " when they . . . they." 
And so at verse 20 ; but see Luke vii. 4, note, and Acts i. 
6, note. 

34, 35. "Crowd" for " multitude" = oxXoS. (?) 

36. " Multitude" = 7t\r/6oZ : but at verse 27, oxXoS is 
"multitude;" and at xxiii. 7, they have " assembly" for 
11 multitude" = nXijOos. 

XXII. 

3. " Instructed" for "taught." Faithfulness. "For 
God" for "toward God" =rov Oeov. 

5. "Journeyed to" for "went to" = e7ropsvoj,i^v eh; 
but cf. verse 10, and xxviii. 14. 

9. "Beheld" for " saw" =eOeaaayro. But see xxi. 27, 
where we have " saw" =6eaaafxevoi. 

12. "Well reported of by" for "having a good report 
of" = lAapTvpovfiEvos. Which is the better English, — 
"of by"? 

13. Why did they not say " Saul, brother" for " brother, 



ACTS. 113 

Saul," and follow the Greek as they have done at Gal. vi. 
18, etc.? "That very hour" for "the same hour," — 
what is the faithful difference ? " Up on" for " up upon ;" 
but this is liable to be misheard, and see Matt. xiv. 25, 
where they give us "upon" for "on," — out of their marvel- 
lous faithfulness. 

14. "A voice" for "the voice." (?) 

15. " Hast seen and heard" = SGopauaS nai r/KOV(?aS. 

18. " Of thee testimony" for "thy testimony." Else- 
where they faithfully put "witness" for "testimony," as 
at John iii. 32,33; v. 34; viii. 17; xxi. 24, etc., etc. Their 
zeal about the article (which is omitted before fxaprvpiav) 
has led to their rendering Gov as if it were rtapoc Gov, or 
were governed by 7tapade£;ovrai. (?) Cf. Rom. ix. 7. 

21. "Unto the Gentiles" = £z's i'&vrf. 

23. "Threw" for " cast" = pnrt ovv tgdv. "Cast" for 
" threw" =fia\\6vT: gov. What an unspeakable improve- 
ment is here ! 

24. " For what cause they so shouted" for " wherefore 
they so cried." There are three words for one, and 
"shouted" for " cried ;" and, after all, we are where we 
were before. 

25. "When they had tied him up" for " as they bound 
him" = go? de npoireivav. But cf. xxv. 14, where they 
actually correct the A. V. by putting " as they tarried there 
many days" for "when they had been there many days" 
= go? ds dierpifiov, k.t.X., followed as here by another 
aorist. 

29. Here they change the construction of the English, 
although the A. V. gives the same sense, and follows the 
Greek construction, with the exception of the ovv, which 
here means " thereupon," and may as well come first as 
second in the English order. 

XXIII. 

1. "Looking stedfastly on" for " earnestly beholding." 
Cf. iii. 12. " Before God, in all good conscience," for "in 
all good conscience, before God." The A. V. has the words 
in the Greek order. 



H4 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

5. "A ruler" for "the ruler." Can it be doubted that 
here the A. V. is right? And so, in verse 6, "a son," in 
apposition and with an anarthrous genitive. Cf. verse 8, 
where they say "the Sadducees" and "the Pharisees/' 
though there is no article in the Greek. 9. "Clamor'' for 
"cry" = Kpavytj ; but see verse 6, " he cried" = inpa^ev. 

12, 14. "Bound," and so on until "have killed," — all 
aorists indicative and subjunctive, and variously rendered 
in the preterite, perfect, and pluperfect. 

15. " Or ever he come near," — retained. "As though ye 
would judge more exactly" for " as though ye would en- 
quire something more perfectly" = go? jJtXXovra? diayi- 
vgdGkeiv acHpifitfiTEpov. 

18. "Took, and" — rtapockafjoov = "took along, and." 
" To say" = \a\?]6ai. Cf. iii. 22 (xxvi. 22, " say") ; John 
viii. 25, 26 (xvi. 18, " say") ; xviii. 20, 21, etc., where " speak" 
is substituted for " say." 

20. " Have agreed" = an aorist. "To bring down" for 
" that thou wouldst bring down' ' = 07TgdS Harayayrj?, — 
also verse 23. But cf. John xi. 53. 

27. "Slay" for "kill" = avaipsiffOai, — and so in verse 
21 = avkXooGiv : but " kill" for " slay" in verses 12 and 14 
= a7TOKT8ivGJ. Cf. xxv. 3, where avsXszv is rendered 
"kill," not "slay." 

32. " To go" = a7Z£px e{ J® al > — not " come off." 

2,^. "And they, when they came," for " who, when they 
came" = oirive;. Cf. Matt. vii. 15; Heb. xii. 7; Tit. i. 
11; 2 Tim. ii. 18; 2 Thess. i. 9; Eph. iv. 19; Rom. iv. 18, 
etc. ; where they render oVrz? " who" or "which ;" though 
in many of those cases faithfulness would require a remodel- 
ling as much as here. 

35. " Thy cause" for " thee" = aov. 

XXIV. 

1. " And they" for " who;" — here right, for it prevents 
an ambiguity in English. 

4. "Intreat" for "pray" = napaKaXob. (?) 

9. "Affirming" for "saying" = cpa6KOvr^. (?) 

10. The construction of the A. V. is nearer the Greek, 



ACTS. 115 

and the sense the same. The Revisers would improve the 
English. Faithfulness ? 

12. "A crowd" for "the people" = oxkov. (?) Why 
not say "the multitude," their usual rendering? In this 
construction, in the genitive, the article is not required in 
Greek. At verse 18, "crowd" for " multitude" spoils the 
English rhythm, besides introducing the unusual rendering. 
'22. "Determine" for "know the uttermost of" = 
diayvclxjofxai. (?) 

24. Is not this change of construction for the worse, ren- 
dering a subordinate clause coordinate ; and, in any event, 
is it not unnecessary ? 

26. "Call thee unto me" for "call for thee" = fxera- 
Kakeaopiai. Cf. xx. 1, where they have made just the con- 
trary change ! 

27. "Desiring" for "willing" = OeXoov (and so at xxv. 
9) = "having a mind to." But Cf. Rom. ix. 22, where, in 
a precisely similar construction and meaning, they render 
"willing." "In bonds" for "bound" = dedejj-evov. Is 
not the sense the same ? And which is the more faithful 
to the Greek ? 

XXV. 

1. "Having come into" for " when he was come into" 
= 87ti/3a?. But cf. xx. 18 ; and xxi. 4, where they render 
£7ti/3aivGD £zV "set foot in." Their changed order, "to 
Jerusalem from Caesarea," is unnatural in English; and, as 
for faithfully conforming to the Greek, they might as well 
have rendered the interpretation of Emmanuel, after the 
Greek: " with us God." 3. " Kill" = aveXsiv. See note 
xxiii. 27. 4. " Howbeit" for "but" = jiev ovv = " where- 
upon" ? And so at xxviii. 5. " Howbeit" seems to be their 
favorite Jack at a pinch, if one may be allowed the collo- 
quialism. 

8. "Have I sinned" for "have I offended" = rjfj,apror. 
Note the aorist. The A. V. would reserve the English word 
"sin" for offending against God. " Desiring" for " will- 
ing" = OeXaoVy see xxiv. 27. " Wilt thou go" = OeXei?, — 
not " wouldst thou." 



n6 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

10, ii. "Have I done," aorist ; "have committed," per- 
fect in the Greek. 

17. "When therefore" for "therefore when," and so, 
habitually. But wherefore is it necessary ? May not 
" therefore" begin a clause in English? And does not the 
illation here belong logically to the principal rather than to 
the subordinate clause with "when"? "Next day" for 
"morrow," but, at verse 6, "morrow" for "next day," — 
where the same fact is referred to. Exquisite faithfulness ! 

22. "Could wish" for "would" = £^ovX6jjlt]v. (?) 

23. " In" for " forth." Nothing in the Greek for either. 
25 and 21. The marginal "the Augustus" may indeed be 

Greek, but is it English ? 

27. "In sending" for "to send." Why change? The 
sense is the same, and neither follows the Greek. That, 
literally translated, would be "that one [or 'that I'] send- 
ing a prisoner should not also signify," etc. 

XXVI. 

6. " Stand to be judged" for " stand and am judged" = 
k(jrr]Ka xpir6jJ.evos. (?) 

7. " By the Jews." No article in the Greek. 

8. "If God doth raise " for "that God should raise." 
Which is English, and which is good reason ? 

10. "And this" for "which thing" = o. What sort of 
faithfulness required this change ? " Vote" for " voice" = 
ipijcpov. The difference ? 

11. Change of construction certainly unnecessary. "Strove 
to make" for " compelled" = yrayxa3,or. If there was 
any ambiguity it was in the Greek. 

16. " Have appeared," an aorist. " To this end" for " for 
this purpose," and what then? "Wherein" for "in the 
which." The sense is the same ; and one expression is 
about as antiquated as the other. But "the which" they 
elsewhere use and multiply. 

22 and 23. " Should" = fjieWorraov and /xiXXei. Also at 
xi. 28 ; xix. 27 ; xx. 38. But cf. verse 2 and xxiii. 27 ; xxii. 
29. They translate by "would" at xxiii. 15, and change it 
quite at xii. 6 and xvi. 27. 



ACTS. 117 

24. ''Mad," "madness," "mad/' But cf. Matt. xxii. 3. 
Why not there say "to bid the bidden" or "to call the 
called" ? However it may be in Greek, such repetitions 
are disagreeable in English. Does faithfulness require 
them ? If so, then it requires them in all cases alike. Cf. 
also Rev. xii. 15. 

28. " With but little persuasion thou wouldst fain make 
me" for "almost thou persuadest me to be" = iv oXzy&y 
jne naideiS 7toii)aai [yeviaOaz]. Even if the iv oXiycp 
cannot mean " almost," the Revisers have certainly given a 
questionable rendering of the Greek. Would not the most 
faithful and literal translation be: "In brief thou art per- 
suading me to make me a Christian" ? Or, if we would avoid 
the repetition of "me," say: "thou art using persuasion 
to make me." For iv oXiycp see Eph. iii. 3. 

XXVII. 

2. "Sail unto" = nXelv eiS, But see verses 1 and 6, 
" sailing for." 

7. Present and aorist participles co-ordinated in the 
Greek, and both translated as pluperfects. 

23. "The God" for "God." But cf. 24 and 25. 

24. "Granted" for "given" = xexcxpi(?Tai. (?) 

29. "Let go from" for "cast out of" = pbpavreZ in. 
"To cast anchor" is an idiomatic phrase in English ; and 
how often the Revisers substitute "out of" for " from" as 
a translation of in we have seen. In the next verse they 
translate it both ways ; and substitute " lay out" for "cast 
out" (anchors) = ixrelveiv = " stretch out." But is " lay 
out" any more faithful than "cast out"? 

34. " Beseech" for "pray" = 7tapaxaXw, — not "intreat;" 
cf. xxiv. 4. "Safety" for "health" = aGorrjpia. (?) 

43. "Desirous" for "willing" =■• fiovXojusvos == "being 
disposed, or minded, to." But SeXa) more usually means 
to will with choice or purpose. 

XXVIII. 

4. "Hath suffered" for " suffereth" = ei'acrev. Why 
change? Cf. evSoiirfGa. 



Il8 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

5. " Howbeit he" for " and he" = 6 jxlv ovv < and fol- 
lowed by 01 Si. 

8. " And it was so" for " and it came to pass"= iyeveto 
Si. But see the almost frantic efforts elsewhere made to 
render yiyvoj^ai differently from eijxi. "And laying" for 
"and laid" = iitiSzi^ — not "having laid;" cf. xxi. 2, 4. 
Change of construction here unnecessary and inconsistent ; 
cf. Matt. xxvi. 26, 27, etc. 

12. " Touching" for " landing" = uarax^ivrs?. (?) And, 
here again, not " having touched." 

14. " Intreated" for "desired" = 7rapsM\r/$r/j.iev, — not 
"besought," cf. xxvii. 34. "To Rome" for "toward Rome" 
= sfe. Note the connection and cf. John xx. 3. 

15. "The brethren, when they," for "when 'the breth- 
ren, . . . they." See notes, Luke vii. 4, and Acts i. 6. 

16. u Abide" for " dwell" = jiirsiv. Consequential. 
18. " Desired"" for " would have" = efiovhovro. (?) 

27. " This people's heart" for " the heart of this people" 
= r} uapdia rov Xaov rovrov. As here is the full suite of 
articles, it is difficult to guess why they made this petty 
change. But cf. Matt. xii. 40. " They have" for " have 
they," — oh! unfathomable faithfulness! "Perceive" for 
" see" = iSqdGi. Is this faithfulness ? If iSodGi is not the 
simple word for " seeing," " seeing with the eyes," what is 
that word ? 

30. " Abode" for " dwelt" (see verse 16) ; and " dwelling" 
for " house" = jxiff^GJ/Aari. But is there anything that de- 
termines this last to be a "dwelling" rather than a 
" house" ? Not unlikely it was a dwelling-house. 



ROMANS. 

I. 

3, 4. "Jesus Christ, our Lord," is dislocated after the 
Greek construction, to no purpose but to spoil the English. 
Cf. 2 Peter iii. 1. "Who was born" for "which was 
made" = roil yevo/xivmj : and so at Gal. iv. 4. But is this 
change necessary ? The Revisers have elsewhere familiarly 



ROMANS. 119 

rendered ylvojuai " be made ;' ' and it is not to be confounded 
with yevraofxai and rinro}j,ai. 

10. " May be prospered" for " might have a prosperous 
journey" = evodoo^^ffojuai. Which is the more faithful to 
the sense? and note the future form. 

12. "That I with you may be comforted in you" =av}x- 
7tapaKk.T}^r]vai ev vjj.iv ■ == "that [being] among you I with 
you may be comforted" ? 

14. If " to Greeks and to barbarians," then say "to wise 
and to unwise," not "to the wise and to the foolish." But 
at verse 16 they render " the Jew and the Greek," although 
there is no article in the text. 

17. "A righteousness of God" for "the righteousness 
of God" = diKaio<5vvr/ Qeov : and so at iii. 21, 22. But 
this is a sort of title, a fixed Pauline phrase. " The" is 
better English than " a;" as the English will scarcely bear 
no article like the Greek. The Apostle is not thinking of 
righteousness which might be counted. Cf. iii. 5 ; — can the 
accusative in Greek dispense with the article any more 
readily than the nominative in such a case as this ? Cf. also 
iii. 21, 22. 

19. " Manifested" for " hath showed." But this is not a 
historical aorist, — see "is manifest," just before. 

20. "Through" for "by," the instrumental dative; 
change unnecessary, for "by" leaves the sense no more 
doubtful in English than it is in Greek. 

21. "Knowing God" for "when they knew God" = 
yvovreZ. (?) "Senseless" for " foolish" — affvveroz (bet- 
ter, "stupid"?); elsewhere they have rendered this word 
" without (or void of) understanding." 

II. 

5. "For" for " unto" = dative. "In the day," "the 
righteous judgement." No article; cf. 2 Cor. vi. 2. 

7. " In well-doing" = i'pyov ayaSov. Why not be 
faithful, and say "in a good work" ? " Incorruption" for 
" immortality" = acpS-a'p&la, — consequential. 

8. "Factious" for " contentious" = ££, epi^eiaS : and so 



120 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

generally, introducing the new word "faction," even to 
saying, James iii. 14, "having faction in your hearts." 

12, 13. "Have sinned" = r}/xaprov : "under law," 
" judged by law," "a law" (bis). But is not "law" here 
41 the law," — " the revealed law" ? Can it be any law what- 
ever ? Cf. verse 17. 

15. "In that they" for " which" = olriveZ. See note, 
Acts xxiii. 33 ; and see especially Matt. vii. 15. 

16. " By Jesus Christ." Needlessly displaced, and " by" 
= did. 

21. " Thou therefore that" for " thou therefore which." 
The A. V. put "which" here to avoid the juxtaposition of 
three tk's, and afterward used "that" when there was no 
"therefore;" but the Revisers, out of sheer faithfulness to 
the original Greek, have felt obliged to put "that" in all 
the clauses alike, as far as to verse 23, where they say "who" 
for "that." But " thou that" having been used four times, 
why is it then changed to " thou who" ? Is this an effect of 
faithfulness also ? 22. " Idols" = roc eidooXa, 

25. "Be a doer" = 7tpd(j(jyS. Elsewhere they change 
"do" to "practise" for this verb. 

27. "With" for "by" = did, cum gen. 

29. "In the spirit," " in the letter;" — no article in the 

Greek. 

III. 

1. " Circumcision." Why not "the circumcision" = rf/S 
rtepiTojJLrfZ'} 

3. "Were without faith' ' = r]7tiarr]6av. At Mark xvi. 
16, and Luke xxiv. 11, 41, they render "disbelieve;" but 
are "want of faith" and "disbelief" the same? At iv. 20, 
they render amarla "unbelief," not "disbelief." 

4. "Be found" for " be" = yivlff^co : but see margin 
just before. " When thou comest into judgement" for " when 
thou art judged" = iv tgo xplvsffSai <ye. Wherefore ? 

7. " Through my lie," — iv. 

8. " Evil"= rd nana: " good" = rd ocyoc^a. 

9. "Are we in worse case?" for "are we better ?" = 
npoexoi^Oa. Ov ndvrooS^" in no wise." Cf. 1 Cor. 
ix. 10. 



ROMANS. 121 

12. Aorists coordinated with presents, and rendered by 
perfects. 

19. " Under" = £v{tgo vojagd). 

20. " The knowledge of sin' ' = £7TiyvG0(TiZ : — no article. 

21. "The law," "a righteousness;" — no article with 
either. " Hath been" for " is (manifested) ;' ' but see " it is 
written." 

22. "Even the righteousness" = SiKaio(jvvrf de. Cf. 

23. " All have sinned" = 7tdvre? rjjAaprov .■ and so at ii. 

12. Here coordinate with a present. Cf. v. 12. 

25. " To show" = si? rrjv svdei^tv, " for the showing" = 
rtpos rrjv ivdei^ir. Very nice ! 

26. " The justifier" = Sinaiovrra. — No art, 

27. Aorist=" it is excluded." " A law" for " the law (of 
faith)." But cf. next verse, "the works of the law" = 
epyoov vojiov. 

30. " And he" for " who"= os. Why not say, " the God 
is one, who shall," etc. Cf. Acts xxvii. 23. 

IV. 

I. "What then shall we say?" for "what shall we say 
then?"=r/ ovv epov/isv $ But cf. vi. 1; viii. 31; ix. 14. 

6. " Pronounceth blessing upon" for " describeth the 
blessedness of"= Xsyei rov /iaxapio~juov rov. But what 
of articles? 

7. " Are forgiven," " are covered," — aorists. 

9. "Is pronounced" % for " corneth" is inserted without 
italics. 

II. "The sign"= Grj/xewv : "the father" = Ttocrlpcx, and 
" righteousness"= rrjv diKaioGvvrjv : at verse 12, " circum- 
cision" and "the circumcision," no article with either; at 

13, "the world," "the righteousness," no article; at 14, 
" of the law"== ix vo/xov : " faith"=?/ niGriS, " the prom- 
ise'^ r) €7tayyeXia : and at 16, "of the law"= sx rov 
v6}xov : "of the faith"= in 7tior£Gos. And why did they 
forget to say, " of Abraham's faith" ? 

18. "Who in hope believed against hope" for " who 



122 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION 

against hope believed in hope"=o; nap eXnida in eXnidi 
eni(jT6V(j£v. Which is the more faithful ? 

20. " Yea looking" is inserted without italics. 

V. 

• 

1. "Being therefore" for " therefore being." But the 
A. V. is good English, good logic, and the true sense. 

5. "Which was given" for "which is given"=roz> 
doOivTos : and so at xii. 3, but cf. verse 1, and Matt. ii. 1, 
etc. 

6. '* While we were weak" for "when we were without 
strength" = ovtgqv aaOerayv. (?) 

11. Nvv iXaj3ojuev y must\)Q rendered perfect. 

12. "Sinned" for "have sinned" = i]}xaprov. But we 
have already seen several cases in this very epistle where 
they have rendered this very word "have sinned." The 
subject "all" brings it down to the present time, as also at 
iii. 23. They might, with reason, have changed " passed " 
to " hath passed ;" but, at all events, r/ptaprov is not related 
as a pluperfect to dujXOev, — the " sinning" and the " pass- 
ing" went (or have gone) on together. See ii. 12, 13 ; Acts 
xxv. 8, etc. 

14. "Who is a figure of him that was to come," — tov 
yeXXovTog : — not "who was a figure," etc., nor '* that is to 
come." Cf. Matt. xi. 14. 

VI. 

2. " Died" for " are dead," and order changed. (.^Mani- 
festly a present condition of " death to sin" is referred to. 

3. "All we who were baptized" for "so many of us as 
were" = ocroi ipanria^i]}AEy. Why not say : " that we, so 
many as were," etc. ? 

4. "We were buried therefore" for "therefore we are 
buried;" — they do not say, "we therefore," cf. v. 1. And, 
for the tense, see yeyovapiev in verse 5. It is an ancient 
Christian idea that, by continual mortifying our corrupt af- 
fections, we are buried with Christ ; thus carrying into effect 
what is signified in baptism. 

6. "Was crucified" for " is crucified" (i.e., "has been") ; 



ROMANS. 



123 



it reaches to the present result. Cf. Gal. v. 24, where, 
in the Revision, earocvpcoaav = " have crucified." 

7. "He that hath died" for "he that is dead"=o 
a7ZO$ravGov. But this is only one form of the English per- 
fect for another ; and so they break down at last in their 
substitution of the preterite for the perfect in translating 
anL^favov : — they did not venture to say "he that died." 
At 1 Thess. v. 10, they render the same participle, referring 
to Christ, "who died," — and rightly; but at Heb. xi. 4, 
they render it, referring to Abel, "being dead," not "hav- 
ing died/'and still less "who died." Cf. Matt. ii. 1, where 
they render 6 r£j3fz? "he that is born;" and Heb. vi. 4-6 
"who were enlightened." Cf. also 1 Thess. iv. 14, where 
" Jesus died" = antSars, and " them that are fallen asleep" 
= roui KOij.ir)%kv?a?, — not " that fell asleep." The change 
to " died" in verse 8 is a palpable incongruity, and, in 
general, their occasional and arbitrary substitution of have 
for be with die, come, go, etc., is uncalled for, and strange after 
"Our Father which." 

8. " Died" for " be dead" = a7T8$avojJ.ev. This is a pres- 
ent condition, as appears from verse 11, where an unequivo- 
cal expression is used in a perfectly parallel case. Cf. vii. 6. 

17. " Became obedient to''' for " have obeyed" =v7Tr/x ov- 
6 are. Above they rendered the same verb "obey," and 
not " become obedient." Why change here? What has 
become of their painful consequential faithfulness? Cf. 
" enter in, enter in, enter ;" " mad, madness, mad ;" " sub- 
jection, subjection, subject, subjected, subjected, subject;" 
Matt, xxiii. 13 ; Acts xxv. 24, 25 ; 1 Cor. xv. 27, 28. — The 
" whereas" here is not in the original. The A. V. and the 
margin give the proper rendering and the simple meaning 
of the text, unless it is proposed to paraphrase. 

VII. 

1. " A man" = rov av^pGonov. 

2. "Discharged from" for "loosed from" (opposed to 
"bound") = narr,pyipai. And so they often say, for "de- 
livered," "freed," "loosed," etc. Is the change required 
by faithfulness ? Is it even any improvement ? There is 



124 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

nothing in the original word about a" charge" or a " load" 
of any kind, whether literally or figuratively. 

3. " Joined" for " married" = yevrjrai. (?) 

4. " Were made dead" for" are become dead," and " was 
raised" for " is raised" (aorists). The old versions, with 
the Rhemish, all agree with the A. V. here, as in all the 
parallel cases. 

6. "We have been discharged'' for " we are delivered" 
(i.e., "have been"), — aorist. "Having died" for "being 
dead ;" — at Heb. xi. 4, they render the same participle " be- 
ing dead." — Here they render in both cases the aorist by the 
perfect, for our deliverance from the law and our death with 
Christ ; and close the verse with referring it to a present 
state. Why not translate consistently with this elsewhere ? 

7. "Except" for " but" = si jxi). The change is un- 
necessary here. It is not consistently adhered to elsewhere ; 
for they not only render ei p.rj by "but," but often substitute 
"but" for some other word in the A. V. The following 
11 except" is in a different construction. 

8. "(Sin) finding occasion" for "taking occasion" = 
acpop;j?)v Xa/3ou(fa. Which is most faithful to the Greek ? 
The syntax of dia rr/Z svroXijs is open to question : whether 
the commandment was used as an occasion or as a means of 
the working of sin? From what follows in verse 11, the 
Revisers would seem more likely to be right. 

15. "Know not" for " allow not" (i.e., "approve not"). 
But what sense is thus made? Is not the true sense: "what 
I do, I do, not recognizing it to be right, i.e., not approving 
it" ? And will not yivooffKoo bear this sense? 

17, 20, etc. "Sin which dwelleth" for "sin that dwell- 
eth ;" but at verse 2, " the woman that hath" for " which 
hath." What infinitesimal nicety of faithfulness! And 
yet "our Father which art" ! In the Greek the "sin" is 
as definite as the " woman," being in the very same form 
of construction ; and is not "Our Father" the Father of us? 

25. Why not say, "a law of God," "a law of sin," at 
least in the margin, = vo/aco Qeov, vofxcp d/xaprla?? Cf. 
viii. 14, 16, and Matt, xxvii. 54, marg. In fact "the law," 
" law," "a law" are very much mixed up between the text 



ROMANS. 125 

and the margin ; and the presence or absence of the article 
in the Greek by no means determines the translation. Not 
special Greek scholarship, but good English common-sense, 
with a study of the context, a consideration of the nature of 
the case, and an apprehension of the Apostle's doctrinal 
drift, must be appealed to and must be relied upon for that 
purpose. But neither common-sense, nor the context, nor 
the nature of the case, nor the Apostle's drift, are any spe- 
cial discoveries " of to-day," or since the translation of 161 1. 

VIII. 

2. " Made" for "hath made;" but see the vvv just be- 
fore. 

9. " The" four times ; — no article in Greek. 

n. They have not got " also" into the right place after 
all. It should be "your mortal bodies also, " — if they have 
any rule for its position. 

14, 16. "Are sons of God" for " are the sons of God ;" 
" children" for " the children." These are both predicates 
and genitive constructions; and, besides, cf. verse 23, " our 
adoption." 

19-23. " Creation" for " creature" = r/ KT161S. Would 
it not have been better to have substituted " creature" for 
"creation" at verse 22, and thus have harmonized the 
whole? They have broken down with their " creation" at 
verse 39 and rendered "creature." The word ktigiS does 
not stand here for the act of making, but for what is made ; 
and naooc rj htiGiS, at verse 22, whether rendered " the 
whole creation," or "all the creatures," or "every creat- 
ure," does not mean literally all created things, — "the 
whole creation" absolutely, — unless the Gospel is to be 
preached, and has been preached, to all created things, 
including beasts, birds, fishes (St. Anthony?), trees, stones, 
winds and waves, sun and moon, stars and comets. See 
Mark xvi. 15 ; Col. i. 23. " The whole creation" or " every 
creature" is, simply, "all mankind" pr " every man," — and 
ithattoo in a general, not in an absolute sense. 

28. The English is stiffened by a Greek construction, — 
making an awkward " even" necessary. Cf. 2 Peter iii. 1. 



126 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

29. " The first-born" = npoDroroKOv. No article. But 
see verses 14 and 16; — all predicates. 

31. " What then shall we say?" for " what shall we then 
say?" r/ ovv epov/tsv ; And so at iv. 1. For this same 
formula, at vi. 1 and ix. 14, they content themselves with 
following the A. V. and saying : " What shall we say then ?" 
What hair are they splitting? Who can fathom the depths 
of this kind of faithfulness ? If they had simply conformed 
the rendering of the A. V. here to that at vi. 1, and elsewhere, 
they might have had some pretext for the change, — but, 
even then,' how very, very slight ! 

2,6. "We we^e accounted" for "we are accounted," 
aorist ; meaning " we have been," for it is co-ordinate with 
a present. Cf. iii. 12. 

38, 39. The transposition of " powers" following a 
change of text is unfortunate for the English; and the 
rhythm of a magnificent passage is brought to utter con- 
fusion. And what is gained thereby? Cf. 2 Peter iii. 1. 

IX. 

8. " Children" for "the children," "a seed" for "the 
seed," predicates. This may be "a sense," but is it "the 
sense"? At verse 7, "thy seed" has no article, though in 
the nominative case. Why did they not there say, " a seed 
to thee" ? 

9. " A word of promise" for " the word." Does the 
apostle mean that the form of expression which he quotes 
is of the nature of a promise ? That surely is jejune enough. 
Does he not rather plainly mean that " this is the very prom- 
ise" which was made to Abraham? Where the Greek 
predicate noun is in the singular number without the article 
the English is, a priori, more likely to require "the" than 
"a," if it must have some article; — unless "the" would 
refer to some specific object definitely expressed or implied 
in the immediate context. 

19. " Still" for " ye,t," — to what purpose ? Cf. 1 Cor. 
xv. 17. 

22. "Willing to show" = $t\oov evdel^affS'ai, — not 
" desiring" or " wishing." Cf. Acts xxiv. 27 ; xxv. 9. 






ROMANS. 127 

27. "If" for "though" = iav. But what is here ex- 
pressed is not a condition but a concession. 

X. 

3. "Did not subject" for "have not submitted." In 
verse 2 we read " they have a zeal for God;" the case is, 
therefore, a present one. Otherwise, on what occasion was 
it that "they did not subject themselves," etc.? 

11. "Shall not be put to shame" for "shall not be 
ashamed" == Karai^x vv ^ } 7 ff£Tai ' If the verb be treated as 
passive, they are right ; if as middle, the A. V. is right. But 
what of it ? 

12. " The same Lord is Lord cf all, and is rich," for " the 
same Lord over all is rich"= 6 avros KvpioS 7tavTGQV 7 
7t\ovtgdv, etc. There is no "and" in the original; cf. i. 

3. 4- 

14. "Have not believed" and "have not heard," for 
Greek aorists. 

19. "Did Israel not know?" for "did not Israel know?" 
= jirj IaparfX ovk e'yvoo ; Now we shall all understand 
the Word of God. 

XI. 

1, 2. "Did God cast off his people?" for" hath God cast 
away his people?" When do they suppose the historical 
fact to have taken place? If the A. V. had said " cast off," 
we might have expected the Revisers to substitute " cast 
away. ' ' 

3. Aorists rendered by perfects. Compare the foregoing 
verses, and the 7th, 8th and nth. 

7. " Obtained" for " hath obtained" (bis). 

8. " Gave" for " hath given/' — " unto this day" ! 

n. "Did they stumble?" for "have they stumbled?" — 
and then, " salvation is come" ! 

31. "Mercy shown to you" for "your mercy" = too 
vjusrtpcp. Which is translation ? If the A. V. is obscure 
or ambiguous, it is no more so than the original. 

32 and 34. Aorists as perfects — again. Cf. verses 1, 2, 7, 
8, n. 



128 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION 

33. " The wisdom and the knowledge of God," — no 
Greek article. 

XII. 

3. " That w T as given" for "given" or "that is given"= 
t//s dode'iGrf? : — and so at verse 6; v. 5, and xv. 15 ; — but 
cf. Matt. ii. 2, etc. " So to think as to think soberly" for 
" to think soberly"= cppoveiv eiz to aoocpporsiv =" to think 
unto sober thinking," or " to think unto soberness of mind," 
or "to think unto soberness." or "to think soberly," or 
"so to think as to be soberminded." " Hath dealt," aorist. 
" A measure of faith" for " the measure of faith." Cf. Rev. 
xxi. 17. But surely it is, "according to the measure (not 
a measure) of faith which God hath dealt to every man." 
Is "each man" any better English ? 

10. "In love of the brethren" for " with brotherly love" 
= rfj cpiXade\q)ia. What authority have they for putting 
the article with " brethren" and not with "love;" or for 
using "in" instead of "with" for the mere dative case? 
And which is, after all, the consistent sense ? We might 
say: "with the brotherly love (i.e. which characterizes 
Christians) be kindly affectioned," etc. ; or, more briefly, as 
the A. V. Compare " the weeping and gnashing." 

19. "Vengeance belongeth unto me" for "vengeance is 
mine" = ifxol eKdiHrjffi;. Cf. Matt. v. 3 ; xix. 14, etc. 

XIII. 

1. " Power" = sgovGia, — elsewhere usually changed to 
"authority" or "right." But here " authority" would be 
more in place than in many of the other cases. 

8. " Save" for " but" = ei }xr) : so also at 1 Cor. i. 14. 
But what necessity for the change ? Elsewhere they sub- 
stitute "but" for " save," see Luke iv. 26, 27. 

10. "His neighbour" = rep 7r\??o'lov = u the neighbour" 
or "one's neighbour." "His" was right with the A. V., 
but is not right in the language " of to-day." It is quite as 
likely to be misunderstood as the " I will have mercy" at 
Matt. ix. 13. 



ROMANS. 129 

XIV. 

14. " Save that" for " but" = si firf. Cf. Gal. ii. 16, where 
they make the same change under sav jur/. "But only" 
would be better in both cases, as at Luke iv. 26, 27, where 
the Revisers substitute it for " save." The si fir] makes an 
exception to a more general clause understood ; thus : " nor 
is anything at all unclean but (or except, or save) to him 
that reckoneth," etc. But if the exception is directly ap- 
plied to the clause expressed it becomes nonsense. Unless 
the ellipsis is supplied, "but" (or "but only") is altogether 
better than " save that;" and, if the ellipsis were supplied, 
it would do quite as well as the other. 

20. " Overthrow" for " destroy" = uaraXv s. (?) 

XV. 

9. "Give praise" for " confess" = s£;ojj.o\oyr]60}Jtai. In 
verse 11, " praise" = aivsirs. Might not the unlearned 
reader be led to think that the original words were the 
same ? 

11. "Let all the peoples praise" for " laud him, all ye peo- 
ple" = €7taiv£ffarG0(Tav. 

12. "The Gentiles" (bis), — no article in Greek. 

15. " I write" for " I have written," — an aorist. 

18. " Wrought" for "hath wrought." (?) The two ver- 
sions of this verse complement each other ; but the A. V. 
is nearest the Greek. 

21. The A. V. is more literal, and equally intelligible. 

22. " These many times" for " much" = ra noXka (cf. John 
iii. 23). There is no "these" in the text. Why not say 
" often," and have done with it ? 

30. " By" for " for the sake of" (not "through") = Sia 
with genitive. 

XVI. 

2. ' ' Hath been " — an aorist. Kai yap = u for . . . also ;' ' 
cf. Matt. xxv. 73 ; 1 Cor. viii. 5, etc., where, no " also." 

18. " Smooth and fair speech" for "good words and fair 
speeches" = xPV^ ro ^ Y^ ai Kai £v\oyiaS. If the A. V. 



130 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

had given their translation can there be any doubt that 
the faithfulness of the Revisers would have substituted that 
of the A. V. ? or else, " smooth speech and fair speech"? 
Just look at the Greek ; and remember their " go in and go 
out" for "go in and out," etc., etc. 

22. ''Who write" for "who wrote" = 6 ypaipaS: — it 
should be "who have written." 

I. CORINTHIANS. 
I. 

2. If the Revisers had a right to insert u Lord" in order 
to make the sense clear, the A. V. had a right to change 
the order of the words for the same purpose, and so dis- 
pense with the insertion. 

4, 5, 6. All the aorists had better be rendered perfects (as 
the A. V. in 4 and 5), — as appears by the present tense in 
verse 7. 

9. " Through" for " by" == Sia, referring to God. Is that 
a better translation in such a case ? 

11. " Hath been signified" for "hath been declared"= 
£5rj\.GDdri. There is no " sign" in the word, — it is not 
GrjfxaivGO, it is from dr/\ov y and means "made clear," 
"manifested." Cf. Rev. i. 1. 

12. " Mean" for " say" ='\tyGD. It is not their business 
to gloss, but to translate. 

18. "Are perishing" for " perish" =ano\\v}AkvoiS. But 
all to whom the Gospel is brought "are perishing." "Are 
being saved" for "are saved" = (?Go£opi£voiS. But this is 
questionable English, and a harshness quite unnecessary. 
So at Acts ii. 47 ; 2 Cor. ii. 15 ; but cf. Luke xiii. 23. 

19. "Reject" for "bring to nothing" = aOeTrfGco. But 
they have rendered this word "to make void" at Gal. ii. 21 
and iii. 15; and "to set at nought" at Heb. x. 28 and 
Jude 8. 

26. "Behold" for " sqc" = ftXlnere. They render ftXtnoo 
"see," ten to one; and at Acts iv. 14 they correct the 
A. V. and substitute " see" for "behold." What a subtlety 
of faithfulness ! 



/. CORINTHIANS. 131 

27. " Choose" (three times) for " hath chosen." (?) 
30. " Was made" for " is made." (? ?) 

II. 

6. "A wisdom" for " the wisdom (of this world) ;" yet 
at verse 5 they say "the wisdom of men," equally without 
the article in the Greek ; and at verse 7 they say " God's 
wisdom," which must be " the wisdom of God," though 
the Greek has no article. 

8. ' * Knoweth" for " knew' ' = iyraoKSv — " hath known.' ' 
This perfect is often used for the present, but not always ; 
and here the perfect seems more suitable to the context, 
since it is immediately added: " for had they known," etc. 
— not " if they knew," etc. 

9. "Things which eye saw not," etc. — a strange version 
indeed, which eye hath not before seen nor ear heard ; and 
all not so much from a change of text as from a change of 
tense in the translation. 

10. ■" Revealed" for " hath revealed." (?) 

11. "Save" for " but" = e i ^17 : but see again Luke iv. 
26, 27, and Rev. ix. 4; xix. 12; xxi. 27, etc. "Things of 
a man," "spirit of the man," — rov avOpoonov alike in 
both cases. 

12. "Received" for "have received." But immediately 
afterwards, " are given" =x a P lG ^^ vra - This is right with 
"have received," but with " received" one would have ex- 
pected "were given," as at iii. 10, and at Rom. v. 5; xii. 
3,6; xv. 15, etc. But the Revisers' faithfulness seems to 
have been at fault just when it might have led them to be 
consistent, at least, if not right. 

14, 15. "The natural man" = ipvxixos avOpooTtoS, — no 
article; and then " he that is spiritual" {i.e., "the spiritual 
man") = 6 7tv€vjuariKOS. Why did they not say " a natural 
man" ? As the article is omitted with ipvxiuoS and inserted 
with 7tvevjj.aTix6s y the distinction in translation would 
seem to have been forced upon their articular faithfulness ; 
and yet one can hardly suspect them of slavishly following 
the A. V. This phenomenon must therefore remain a 
mystery ; but ' ' aliquando bonus dormitat Ho??ierus! ' In 



132 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

verse 15, "and" for "yet." The A. V. is right, for the 
apodosis. 

III. 

10. "Was given" for "is given" = SoS-s i6av. Here 
they have changed "have laid" to "laid" (needlessly, even 
though the Greek text is changed from perfect to aorist), 
and so they are consistent; cf. ii. 12. " A" for "the (foun- 
dation) ;" but English idiom requires "the" for the true 
sense. 

13. "Each" for " every" = tKaoroi : and so usually, 
but not always. At verses 5 and 8 the change is well, as 
but two only are compared. Here the case is different. 

16. " A" for " the (temple of God)." Temple is a pred- 
icate and with a genitive ; and see the next verse. The 
A. V. is plainly right, and the Revisers are inconsistent 
with themselves. 

IV. 

8. Here is a perfect (or a present with a perfect participle) 
coordinated with aorists, which latter are (rightly) rendered 
as perfects or presents, — one of them being conjoined with 
rfdrj. So also at verses 9 and 13. 

15, 17. Aorist rendered first as preterite then as perfect, — 
"I begat" and then " I have sent." " Should have" for 
"have." Cf. Luke xvi. 31. 

V. 

1. "Actually" for " commonly"= oXgdZ. (?) 

2. Aorist, coordinated with perfect or present, is rendered 
preterite ; but cf. iv. 8. Better render in the perfect (with 
the A. V.) ; and render 6 7toujffas, afterwards, by " who 
did," and neither (with the Revisers) "had done" nor 
(with the A. V.) "hath done." 

7. "Hath been sacrificed" for "is sacrificed"^ hv^rf. 
Why did they not say, as they are apt to do in similar con- 
nections, " was sacrificed "? 

q. "I wrote unto you" (so also the A. V.) = eypaipa. 



1. CORINTHIANS. 133 

Why not " I write" or " I have written (in my epistle) "? 
Cf. verse 11, "I write"= eypaipa. 



VI. 

2. " The smallest" = eXaxi^rcov : no article. See also 
Luke xii. 26, " that which is least" = i Xolxigtov : but cf. 
Lukexvi. 10, where they put " a very little" for "the least," 
so as to be faithful in it ; and, while in the two other cases 
they had a simple genitive and an accusative to translate, 
in this last they have the preposition iv. 

5. "Cannot be found" for " is not among" = ovn ivi iv. 
Which is the more exact ? 

n. Aorists rendered preterite (A. V. present or perfect). 
Is not the perfect better : " Ye have been washed, ye have 
been sanctified," etc. ? The state, the effects, continue ; and 
the apostle is not conceiving them as historical facts in 
some distant past. 

12. "Not all things are" for "all things are not" = 
ov rtavra. Right, but it seems to have been by chance ; 
for at x. 23 they render precisely the same formula "all 
things are not ;" see also 2 Thess. iii. 2 ; 1 Cor. xv. 51, etc. 
At 1 John ii. 19, with the margin, they seem to hold to 
both constructions. 

16. "A harlot"=r$ 7topvr\. Cf. Matt. ii. 23. 

19. "A temple" for "the temple." Cf. Gal. ii. 8, where 
"the apostleship of the circumcision" = a.7to6To\i]v rfj£ 
7r£pirofxr/s. Here, Canon Westcott thinks, "the temple" 
spoils the logic, but he does not make it logically clear. 
(" Gospel of the Resurrection," chap. iii. 20). 

20. " Were brought" for "are brought." (?) And so at 
vii. 23. 

VII. 

11. " But and if '= ear 6e Mai, also at verse 28 ; and so, 
for el 3e nod, 2 Cor. iv. 3 ; 1 Pet. iii. 14. Did the Revisers 
suppose that, in retaining the old translation in such cases, 
they were rendering every one of the Greek particles ? It 
is not unlikely that, in the old English, " but and if" was 



134 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

a corruption of the pleonastic " but an if." Shakespeare 
often uses "an if" or "and if" for simple "if." 

28. " And I would spare you" for "but I spare you" = 
ay go dt vfAobv cpaidojiai. Which is faithful ? 

32. "I would have you"=S'/A(i? vjaocS. And so the 
A. V. ; — very good. 

34. "In body" and "in spirit" =rc5 Gaofiari and tgj 
7tvevjLiaTi. But see " the weeping and gnashing." 

40. " I think that I also have the Spirit of God" for "I 
think also that I ha.ve"=3oMGo $e xayoj s'xsiv. The "I 
also" is the immediate subject of "think," and not of 
" have." 

VIII. 

5. "No God but one." Elsewhere they have often sub- 
stituted " save" for " but"= ei jxr] : as at Mark x. 8. " No 
idol is (anything)" for "an idol is nothing;" — Greek 
purism. What is the difference ? If "anything" must be 
inserted after "no," how much does it differ from "noth- 
ing" after all ? Did faithfulness to God's word require this 
exhibition of a knowledge of the niceties of Greek con- 
struction ? 

7. "That knowledge"=7 yvGoffis. " Of a. thing sacri- 
ficed to" for "as a thing offered unto." Why translate 
the accusative as a genitive. Did faithfulness either to 
God's word or to the Greek construction require it ? 

10. "To eat things sacrificed to idols" for "to eat 
those things which are offered to idols"=r# eidcoXo^vta. 
But what of the Greek article, and faithfulness besides ? 
Suppose the A. V. had had the Revisers' rendering, with 
what articular faithfulness they would have changed it ! 
" Sacrificed" for " offered," throughout here, is consequen- 
tial, but is it necessary? 



11. "Through"= ev. 



IX. 



10. " Altogether" = 7rdvT&j£. This word here should 
have been translated "by all means," as at verse 22. The 
apostle does not mean to say that, in that precept of the 



/. CORINTHIANS. 135 

law, God had no regard at all to the protection of oxen ; 
but that, in it, there is by all means contained a principle 
of far higher and wider application. 

12. " Did not use" for " have not used ;" — here in imme- 
diate correlation with present tenses. 

15. " Write" for " have written," — an aorist. (?) "May 
be so done" for " should (or might) be so done"= yirrjrai. 
" Than that any man should make void"= rj ovdek k8vgq6£i. 
This is their text, negative, future, and all. 



1. " I would not have you" for " I would not that ye 
should be"= S-sXgj vjjccZ : and so at xiv. 5. But see Luke 
xix. 14, and 1 Tim. ii. 4, corrected contrariw.se! "Were 
all" for " all were"=7ra^T£S' rjffar. 

2. "Baptized unto," — eh: "into," in margin. Why? 
Not so elsewhere. See Matt, xxviii. 19. 

13. " Such as man can bear" for " such as is common to 
man"= avSpGOTtivoZ = " human," " which is incident to 
the condition of humanity," " which pertains to the common 
lot of man." Anything more is not derived from the word 
itself, but is imported into it. 

15. " A communion" for" the communion," — in the pred- 
icate. (?) 

18. ** Have communion" for " are partakers"= koivgdvoI 
eiai. 

23. " All are not"= ov navra. But see the logically cor- 
rect rendering of the same phrase at vi. 12 ; and cf. Wiclif. 

XI. 

1. "Imitators" for "followers." A question of simple 
English idiom and usage. 

n, 12. "The woman and the man ;" twice without the 
article, and twice with the article (in Greek). Consequen- 
tial ? 

13. "Judge ye" for " judge"= xpivars. 

14. The Revisers have done well to retain here (with the 
A, V.) the word "nature" for cpvGiS. According to the 
usage of Aristotle, the teaching of " nature" {cpvGil) might 



136 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

mean, in the Greek of any period, "the best sentiment," 
the teaching of " the highest civilization," of that period. 
Arist. Polit. (Sir Alexander Grant). 

20. " The Lord's Supper;" — no article in the Greek, but 
cf. x. 4, "a spiritual rock," and with this Heb. xii. 22. 

21. Here the Oxford edition of the Revisers' Greek text 
has in for ev; translated "in" (your eating). 

29. "If he discern not" = M 1 ? SiaKpivoov : but cf. Heb. 
vi. 6. 

XII. 

13. "Were baptized" for " are (have been) baptized;" 
"were made" for " have been made ;" (?) "of one spirit" 
= sv nvEVjia, — no " of.' ' 

15, 16. " The hand"= j£zp :— why not "a hand"? 

18. " Hath set" = i$sro: and then "pleased" for "hath 
pleased" =ij$£\r/6'ev. (?) 

24. "Tempered" for "hath tempered." (?) 

XIII. 

5. " Evil" = to uauov : " taketh account of" = \oyi- 
Zerai, — not " reckoneth." 

11." Now that" =ot£ (" When I am become"). " Felt" 
= ecppovovr. (?) 

12. "In a mirror"=d l z effonrpov =" through (or by 
means of) a mirror; " cf. " through the prophets." 

XIV. 

I. "Yet" for "and"=df. Why? 

S. "War" for " battle" = noXepLOv. The trumpet was 
usually sounded for battle and not for war; and will not 
noXefAO? bear that sense ? In Homer and Hesiod the signifi- 
cation " battle" prevails ; in the later, and in the Attic Greek 
especially, that of " war;" but not so that it ever became 
obsolete in the former sense. 

II. "If then" for "therefore if," in the protasis. What 
is the loy-ic of the difference? 

19. " Ilowbeit" for " yet"= <*AAaf. At our wits' end, we 



/. CORINTHIANS. 137 

humbly ask, can it be that " faithfulness" required this 
change ? 

21. " By" for "with"=£V. (?) And why did they not 
say " in," by way of consequence ? 

35. "Would learn" for "will learn" ^SeXovffiv. 

2,6. "What?"=7. But cf. x. 22; vi. 9, 16, 19; Rom. ix. 
21 ; vi. 3, etc. 

37. " The commandment" = ivroXtj. 

XV. 

6. " Of whom the greater part"= 01 nXeiovs : but cf. x. 5, 
where they render " most of them." "Are fallen asleep," 
— an aorist. 

15, 16, etc. "Are raised" for "rise "= eyaipovrai. The 
old story come again; but see Matt, xxviii. 6, 7, etc., etc. 

17. " Yet"= iri : why not change it to " still," as so often 
elsewhere? Cf. Rom. ix. 19. 

20-26. "The dead," "first-fruits," "the first-fruits," 
"the resurrection of the dead," "the last enemy," — all 
alike anarthrous in the Greek. Why not say " all the ene- 
mies," like " all the nations"= 7tavtaS rovs £x$-pov9. They 
say "all his enemies," but quaere? 

27. "Put" for " hath put;" but a coordinated perfect 
form immediately follows, and immediately after that a 
subjunctive aorist which they themselves render as a per- 
fect (future) ; — V7tira^ev P vnorLranrai 7 V7torayrj. For 
the repetitions in the English here, cf. Matt. xxii. 3, etc. 

31. Why not arrange the clauses after the order of the 
Greek, instead of inverting, and begin with " I die daily" 
etc. ? Is not the order of the Greek a sacred trust to faith- 
fulness ? Cf. Mark v. 15, etc. 

33. "Evil company" for "evil communications" = opuXiai 
naKai. Well enough, but what faithfulness required a 
change from the more to the less literal ? 

36. "Thou foolish one" for "thou fool" = acppoov. 
"Thou fool" may be too strong, but "thou foolish one" is 
quite too weak ; and, besides, is a phrase which no English 
writer would employ under such circumstances. 

3S. " Pleased" for " hath pleased," (?). " Of his own" for 



133 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

" his own" = i'diov. The apostle does not mean simply " a 
body that shall henceforth belong to it," but " its appropri- 
ate body," whereby it is distinguished from all other bodies, 
or kinds of bodies. And for the matter of the article, see 
Rom. ix. 7,2 Cor. vi. 16 (cf. Eph. ii. 10) ; Col. iv. 15; 1 
Thess. ii. 11 (cf. ii. 7); etc. 

44. "There is also a spiritual body" =eari nai Ttvev^ia- 
riuov. Is this the faithful place for the " also"? 

51. "Not all." But in the Greek the "not" stands after 
the " all" and is joined with the verb ; a construction which, 
by universal Greek usage (we believe), makes a universal 
negative. The " we, " as appears in the next verse, refers to 
those who shall be alive and remain at the coming of the 
Lord. Of such the apostle here declares that none will 
need to die, but all will be changed. 

54. " Is swallowed up"= Kareno^?], — £zY vikoZ, i.e., not 
"victoriously," as in the margin (that would reduce the 
magnificent figure to mere common-place); but "by vic- 
tory, " or " in victory," or "into victory"; — "victory shall 
swallow up (or swallow down) death;" i.e.," death shall 
be utterly vanquished." 

XVI. 

7. "I do not wish" for " I will not;" rather " I do not 
choose" or "it is not my purpose" = ov BeXa?. 

8. " I will tarry" =£7TipievGo= " I shall tarry." 

10. "The brother" for " our brother;" cf. 2 Cor. i. 1. 

I. CORINTHIANS. 

I. 

1. " The whole of " for " all " = oXrf r?j. Cf. Matt. iv. 23, 
24 ; and see note Matt. xxii. 40. 

4. "Them that" for "them which"; and so at xiii. 2; 
Rom. viii. 1, xi. 22, xii. 14; but "them which"/<?r "them 
that," Gal. iv. 5. And see " they which," 1 Cor. ix. 13, 14 ; 
Rom. ix. 6; Gal. iii. 7, 9, v. 12, 21 (at 24, "they that"), 
etc., etc.; "they that," 1 Cor. xv. 23, 48; Rom. xvi. iS : 
Matt. v. 4, etc., etc.; "they who," Rom.^v. 21 ; "him who," 



//. CORINTHIANS. 139 

Rom. xiv. 14; "her which," and "he that," Gal. iv. 27, 
29 ; "he which," 2 Cor. iv. 14; " he that" for " he which," 
Gal. i. 23; "them who" /^r "them which," Gal. ii. 2; 
" them that"/<?r " them who," Gal. vi. 10 and Rom. ii. 7; 
" we which," 2 Cor. iv. 11 and Heb. iv. 3 ; "us which," 1 
Cor. i. 18; "we that," 2 Cor. v. 4; " ye which," Gal. vi. 
1 ; but ' ' you that' ' for ' 4 you who, ' ' 2 Thess. i. 7 ; ' ' the things 
that" for "the things which," 1 Cor. i. 27, 28 and 2 Cor. 
xi. 30 ; "the things which " for "the things that," 1 Cor. 
xiv. 37, and cf. 2 Cor. iv. 18; "the Spirit which," 1 Cor. 
ii. 12; " the grace which," iii. 10; " thee which," viii. 10; 
but "thou that" for "thou which," Rom. ii. 21, and "thou 
who" for "thou that" at verse 23. — And so on and on 
in infinitum ; — a perfect medley of inconsistencies ; at least 
to our poor, untutored apprehension. In making their 
corrections the learned Revisers may have assumed some 
arbitrary principle of distinction in their use of who, which 
and that, but certainly none to which they have themselves 
adhered throughout ; nor, if they had, could any changes in 
the English have been required at all by differences in the 
Greek mode of expression which made no difference in the 
sense. Above, such differences are scarcely found. 

12. "We behaved ourselves" for "we have had our con- 
versation" = avsa rpa(p?jjA€v, Cf. Eph. ii. 3, where they 
render " we lived." 

17. " Shew' ' for " use" = exprjCDajxrfv. 
23. " Forbare to come" for " came not as yet"= ovxeri 
rjXBov. Specimens of faithfulness. 

II. 

13. "I had" = i r (jxv Ka -> — not " I have had." So at vii. 5 ; 
and, at Gal. iii. 17, "which came" =0 ysyovGoZ: Heb. xi. 
28, "he kept" =7te7toir]K£. But here, at i. 9, they had just 
carefully substituted " have had" for " had" = e^xV Ka r iev '• 
and then immediately, "we have set our hope" for "we 
trust" = rfkniKajiEv. But "we have set our hope" is 
not equivalent to "we have hoped," but rather to " we 
hope" or " we trust ;" so that their elaborate change of 



140 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

rendering is, after all, only a se?nblance (to use no harsher 
word) of conformity to the tense of the original. 

15. " In them that are being saved" = iv rots 6008,0- 
jAevoiS. Cf. Luke xiii. 23, etc. 

III. 

3. " Ministered " = diaKovrjSsiisa, u written" = iyye- 
ypapi/xsvrj. Here aorist and perfect are co-ordinated and 
rendered alike. 

6. "A new covenant," "the letter," "the spirit." No 
article in either case. 

7. "Look steadfastly upon" for "steadfastly behold" = 
arevlaai. Cf. Acts vi. 15, where " looking steadfastly on" 
is changed to "fastening their eyes on." Truly these Re- 
visers are hard to please. 

7— 11. "With glory" = iv S6^r\ an d Sid doijrjS: "In 
glory" — So%)2 and iv dogy. 

10. " Surpasseth" for "excelleth." How vastly impor- 
tant! 

12. " Such a hope" for " such hope." 

11, 13. They render to xarapyovjASvov "that which 
passeth away," and then, " that which was passing away" 
— both alike connected with past tenses. 

18. " From the Lord the Spirit" for " by the Spirit of the 
Lord" = aito Kvplov IIvevjbiaToZ. (?) This is the marginal 
reading of the A. V. 

IV. 

1. " Therefore seeing we have this ministry." Cf. iii. 12, 
"having therefore such a hope," and Rom. v. 1, "being 
therefore justified," etc., etc. It seems therefore that the 
English is admitted to allow either construction of " there- 
fore ;" and it is merely a servile following of the Greek or- 
der, if, when we use the same word in English, we put it 
first when it translates did tovro, and second when it stands 
for ovv. The English style is not improved ; the English 
sense is not affected. In an independent translation, this 
would be servility ; and yet, if the translator chose to wear 
the yoke, we might find no fault with his work. But is it 



II. CORINTHIANS. 141 

not more than servility when such meaningless changes are 
foisted into the revision of a received translation by men 
who profess to act under the rule of " making as few altera- 
tions as possible, consistently with faithfulness"? "Ob- 
tained" for "have received ;" — it is subordinate to a present 
tense, and is immediately followed by " have renounced" = 
a7tei7ta)j.e^a. 

4. "Hath blinded" = an aorist ; but at verse 6, again, 
" shined" for "hath shined" = another aorist. 

13. "Therefore" =616 (bis). But cf. Rom. ii. 1; iv. 22, 
etc., etc, where they have carefully changed " therefore" to 
"wherefore," the sense remaining unchanged in all the 
cases. Their faithfulness seems to have failed them here. 



i. " The earthly house of our tabernacle" for " our 
earthly house of this tabernacle" — r/ £7Ziyeios rjjAcov oinia 
rov axtfrovs. The " our" belongs (with A. V.) to 
" house," and not to " tabernacle ;" and had they any busi- 
ness to change its place in order to get rid of the " this" inserted 
in the A. V.? They themselves put " this" oftentimes for the 
mere article, as immediately below, at verse 4, with this very 
"tabernacle;" also at viii. 4, with "grace," where the A. 
V. has the simple article like the Greek. And when they 
thus use " this" they do not modestly put it in italics as does 
the A. V. 

5. "Wrought" and "gave" for "have," etc. (?) 

7. "By" (twice) = Sia. 

10. "In" = dia. " Hath done, " — an aorist. 

11. " Are made manifest," perfect tense. 

12. "To answer" is italicized in the A. V., but not here ; 
although it is not in the text. 

13. Aorist and present coordinated, and both translated 
as present. Cf. John xvii. 

14. "All died" for "ail were dead" = an&avov. Should 
it not be with Tyndal, "all are dead" ? The life of those 
" which live" (in verse 15) is a present life and not a past 
event, and yet it is as intimately connected with Christ's re- 



142 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

surrection as our death is with his death. Our death to sin is 
just as much a present, continuous fact, as our life to 
righteousness. The former is no more ideally, constructive- 
ly, or prolepticaily identified with Christ's death as a his- 
torical fact, than the latter is with Christ's resurrection as 
such a fact. Christ died, we are dead ; Christ rose, we live ; 
— cf . next verse. 

17. " Are passed away" = 7rap?)\$ev, and "are become 
new" = ytyova : aorist and perfect coordinated and both 
rendered perfect. The first, the " are passed away," corre- 
sponds exactly to the "are dead" (otTZtSavov) ; and the 
" are become new" to the new life {01 S,GovT8i). 

As regards doctrinal considerations, whether of predes- 
tination or of baptismal regeneration, in determining the 
translation of this and kindred passages (as Rom. vi. 3-1 1 ; 
Col. ii. 11— 15, and iii. 3), every man will exercise his own 
judgment or may be swayed by his own bias ; but if, in that 
connection, authority is appealed to, — authority we now 
mean, not of Greek scholarship, but as to the bearing of 
dogmatical questions, upon the translation of these pas- 
sages, — surely the consenting authority of all the old trans- 
lators, of Luther and De Sacy, of Wiclif and Tyndal, of 
the Genevan, the Bishops', and, notably, the Rhemish ver- 
sions, as well as of the the forty-seven translators of 1611, 
may be boldly held as high as that of the learned authors 
of the late Revision. The laws of the Greek aorist decide 
nothing in favor of the Revisers — themselves being wit- 
nesses upon the spot — see Ttapf/XOev ; the most diversified 
rhades of theological thought consent in deciding against 
them. Let this be said once for all. 

20. " We are ambassadors, therefore" for " now then we 
are ambassadors (for Christ)" = (v7T€pXpi(Trov) ovv 7tp£6- 
fievo^iev. So it seems that when the A. V. puts "then" 
(= therefore) as a translation for ovv, next the first word 
of the sentence a la grccque, the Revisers can put their 
"therefore" further on, and where the Greek does not put 
it ; though they have generally been so fastidious in cor- 
recting the A. V. elsewhere by putting the " therefore" (for 
ovv) next after the first word or two, as in the Greek. Why 



//. CORINTHIANS. 143 

did they not say, — if they must alter the A. V., — " We are, 
therefore," etc.? Or, more faithful still, "For Christ, 
therefore, are we ambassadors" ? Cf. Phil. iii. 15, ad fin, 

VI. 

2. "A day of salvation" for " the day," etc. But why 
change ? One thing is clear ; the absence of the Greek 
article does not require the change. Cf. Matt. ii. 1 ; x. 15 ; 
xi. 22, 24; xii. 36; Rom. ii. 5; Eph. iv. 30; Phil. i. 6; 1 
Thess. v. 2 ; Heb. viii. 8, 9 ; 1 Pet. ii. 12 ; 2 Pet. ii. 9 ; iii. 7, 
etc., etc., where they say "the day" for no Greek article; 
and see immediately below, where they say " the day of 
salvation," and no article. In Isaiah, the A. V. has " a 
day," but surely that cannot control the translation here. 

16. "A temple of God" for "the temple," etc. (twice). 
But, in the first place, the complex expression vads Qeou, 
both words being without an article, may mean " the tem- 
ple of God ;' ' and in the second instance the words are in 
the predicate ; moreover, if the Revisers would be consis- 
tent, they should have said "a temple of a living God." Cf. 
i Thess. i. 9. — " My people" = jaov XaoS (no art). Why did 
they not say " a people of mine" ? Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 38 ; Rev. 
iii. 2. 

VII. 

5. " Had," for a perfect. See Gal. iii. 17, note. 

6. " He that comforteth .... even God" for " God that 
comforteth." 

7. " By" = iv (thrice). Why so ? 

8. " With" = ev, and why ? 

10. "Which bringeth no regret" = ajisrajxaXrjrov = 
"which is not to be regretted," or " repented of." 

11. " Concerning you" = iv v/ziv. The Revisers seem 
to claim for themselves no small liberty in translating the 
Greek prepositions. They are therefore bound to respect 
an equal liberty in others, even in the A. V. 

VIII. 

4. "In regard of this grace" = rr/v x a P lv - Would not 
" for" be better — " beseeching us for the grace and the par- 



144 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

ticipation in," etc. ? There is nothing in the Greek for 
their "this" but ri)v : cf. v. i. 

5. "Had hoped" for " hoped" = i]\ni6 ajusv. But see 
Acts vii. 44, where they change " had appointed" to " ap- 
pointed ;" also Matt. xvi. 5 ; Mark viii. 14, where they 
change in like manner. Cf. Matt, xxviii. 16 ; Luke xxii. 13; 
xxiv. 24, — where the pluperfect is retained, as also in the 
next verse. 

6. " Had made a beginning before" for " had begun" = 
7tpoev7jp^aro : — "in you" = £zS rjfias : — "complete" for 
"finish" = STTirsXiffr], but the simple "finish" corresponds 
to "beginning" as "complete" would correspond to "com- 
mencement. " 

10. " Were the first to make a beginning" for " have be- 
gun before" == 7tposvrfp£;a6$e. But see their version at 
verse 6. 

12. "A man hath" = s'xrj- Thus ns is understood ; but see 
Heb. x. 38. 

13. " By equality" = si; iaorrjroS. Is it not "from re- 
gard to equality" ? 

16. "Which putteth" for "which put." Does not the 
connection here favor the past ? Cf. Rev. viii. 9 ; xix. 19, 
21 ; John xiii. 11. 

17. "Our" for "the" = rr]v. " Very earnest" = 67tov- 
SawrspoS : but cf. Acts xvii. 22. 

1S. " Have sent," — an aorist. 

20. " That any man" for ' ' that no man " = jU7/ ns = " lest 
any man." Cf. Acts x. 47. 

22. " The great confidence which" = 7tS7toiSr/(jsi 7toXXrj 
rrj. Cf. their wrestling with a similar construction at 
Gal. ii. 20. 

23. "The messengers of the churches" and " the glory 
of Christ." No art. in Gr. Cf. 1 Cor.vi. 19 ; 2 Cor. vi. 16; 
Mark iii. 17, etc., etc. 

IX. 

2. " Readiness" for " forwardness of mind" = 7rpo$vjuia. 
"Prepared" for " ready" = 7taps6nsva(3rai (so also at 
verse 3). " Hath stirred up" for " hath provoked" =?//?£- 



//. CORINTHIANS. 145 

Sure, — an aorist coordinated with a perfect ; cf. John 
xvii. 

3. "Have sent," — an aorist. 

5. "I thought it necessary therefore" for " therefore I 
thought it necessary." But wherefore did the Revisers 
think the change necessary? " Intreat" for " exhort" = 
7iapaxa\e6ai ; but for the very same word in the very same 
sense, at viii. 6, "exhorted" is substituted for " desired." 
See Phil. iv. 2, note. 

9. Aorists = perfects, in poetry. 

X. 

1. "Intreat" for " beseech ;" the difference? See again 
Phil. iv. 2, note. 

4. "Before God" for ''through God" =tg3 Qeti. (?) 
The margin of the A. V. suggests " to God." 

7. " Consider" = \oyi8,£<j%GD, — not "count" nor "reck- 
on." Cf. verse 11, where they have " reckon" for " think." 

8. "Abundantly" for "more" == nepiGaotepov. What 
then would 7tepi66Go$ mean? Cf. 1 Cor. xii. 23, 24; xv. 
10 ; 2 Cor. i. 12 ; ii. 4, etc. For the tenses here and at xii. 
6, cf. Luke xvi. 30, 31 (A. V.) 

10. "They say" = cp-qai (" saith he," the false teacher) ? 
"Strong" for " powerful" = iaxvpai: so, at 1 Cor. i. 27 
and Rev. x. 1, xviii. 10, 21, they substitute "strong" for 
"mighty;" at xviii. 2, "mighty" for "strong," and they 
retain "mighty" at Matt. iii. 11 ; Mark i. 7; Luke iii. 
16; xv. 14; Rev. xix. 6, 18, etc. The nicety of their dis- 
criminating faithfulness is worthy of all admiration. 

12. " Are without understanding" for "are not wise" = 
ov 6W10V61V. (?) That changes the negative construction 
and thus modifies the sense. 

13. "Province" for " rule" = uavovos. Marg. , " Gr. 
measuring rod." 

16. " Parts" for " regions" = vnepsneiva. (?) 

XI. 

5. Marg., "Those preeminent apostles" = tgqv vuep- 
\iav anoGroXoDV. Whence is the "those" derived? 

13. "Fashioning" for "transforming" = j^8raffxVM a ' 



146 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

ri2,6j4£voi. So at 14 and 15. But what has become of 
the jas ra ? 

21. " We had been weak" — rjaBerrjua^sr. 

23. " One beside himself" for " a fool" = Ttapacppovdov. 
Elsewhere they have used this same phrase for £KGraS 
(Mark iii. 21); but they have declined to use it (with the 
A. V.) for jxaiv o piev oS at Acts xxvi. 24. 

26. "The Gentiles," £B, eSrdov. (No art.) So "the 
wilderness," " the sea," "the city;" while " rivers," " rob- 
bers," "false brethren" are rendered without the article 
in English. 

XII. 

2. "Know" for "knew" = 016a: but consider the 
"fourteen years ago." "In the body" = iv Goo pari .- 
"out of the body" = euros rov Goop.aro-> : "the third 
heaven," no article. 

4. "Into Paradise = eis rov 77. Are not the Revisers 
still too much under the influence of the Latin idiom? 
Might not faithfulness revolutionize the English language 
a little further, — after " the weeping and gnashing," — and 
say " into the Paradise'' ? 

5. "Save" for " but " = £ i }ir}. Why not "but only," as 
at Luke iv. 26, 27 ? " On mine own behalf I will not glory" 
is absolute. The exception is made to a more general 
proposition implied, as, " Neither will I glory at all except," 
etc. The apostle does not mean to say that the only case 
in which he will glory in his own behalf is when he 
glories in the cross of Christ ; yet this is just what the Re- 
visers make him say. On the other hand the A. V. gives 
the true sense, as the Revisers have done in St. Luke. 

6. "If I should desire I shall not be;" — is that good 
English ? See also x. 8, and cf. Luke xvi. 30, 31. 

9. "Power" for "strength" = dvva/us. "Strength" 
for " power" = Svva/.uS ! ! 

11. Marg., "Those preeminent apostles" again. What 
' l preeminent apostles" ? " Those" ? 

12. •" An apostle" = rov anoaroXov. See " the sower." 

13. 4i Except it be" = £ i jutj. Right (with A. V.). 



GALA TIANS. 147 

16. " I myself" for "I." Cf. verses n, 13, 15. 

17. " Take any advantage" for " make a gain" =eK7t\e- 
ovixrrjGa. (?) 

18. " Exhorted" for " desired" = napeKaXeaa. Cf. ix. 5 ; 
x. 1; Phil. iv. 2, note. "The brother" for "a brother;" 
article in Greek, but not natural in English; see verse 12. 
4 'By" for "in ;" and then, "in." 

19. " Are" inserted for " we do.'* May not the " are" be 
stretched too far ? Might not some things happen which 
would not be for their edifying ? Remember how carefully 
they change the place of " still" at John xi. 20. 

20. ' ' Should find' ' for ' ' shall find" = evpoo : and " should 
be found,' 1 etc. Is this good English in this construction ? 
They themselves often render the subjunctive aorist by a 
future. 

XIII. 

1. "Two witnesses or three" for "two or three wit- 
nesses." But why not say " and three" ? The Greek is Hal 
rpiGov. The xai may be of consequence, but the Greek 
order is not. At all events the nod is there; and their 
faithfulness must have slept. 

4. " Through" = iv (thrice). 

5. "Or know ye not as to your own selves that Jesus 
Christ is in you?" for "What! know ye not your own 
selves how that Jesus Christ is in you ?" The A. V. fol- 
lows the Greek, except the "how" inserted; and they took 
?} for "what!" not "or." Cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 36, note. 

\ 

[ GALATIANS. 



.8. "Tarried" for " abode" = e7tefxeiva. But see Phil, 
i. 24, — " abide" = €7ri/j.iv8iv. 

19. "But only" for "save" (marg.) = si firf. Very 
well. 

23. "But they only heard say" for "but they had heard 
only." Did the apostle mean that all they did was to 
"hear say," or that none but "they" heard? or rather that 






148 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

all they had heard about him was, that, etc. ? For their con- 
struction (in orat. recta) cf. Matt. ii. J3. 

II. 

1. "After the space of fourteen years" for "fourteen 
years after ' =6ia (14) hcav. (?) 

5. "In the way of" for "by" (subjection) = rrj 
V7toTayrj. Say " by way of " ? 

8. "The apostleship " = a7to(?ToAt?v rr/S. Why not 
"an apostleship"? Cf. 1 Cor. vi. 19. There a predicate, 
here with sis. And see Eph. i. 14. 

9. Does the utter derangement of this verse, h la grecque, 
change the sense or improve the expression ? If not, what 
faithfulness required it ? Cf. 2 Peter iii. 1. " Should go" 
ought to continue italicized. Other words might be in- 
serted instead, as "have to do with," or "preach to," or 
" exercise apostleship towards." 

16. "Save through faith in Jesus Christ" for "but by 
the faith of Jesus Christ = edv jxtj did 7riareaos 'irjaov 
XpiGTov. The Revisers have rendered " the faith of Jesus" 
at Rev. xiv. 12. Their "save" for " but" makes the apostle 
say that "a man is justified by the works of the law, only 
when he is justified by faith in Jesus Christ and not by the 
works of the law ; for by the works of the law shall no 
flesh be justified" ! As for the translation of edv jxr} in 
general ; — at Matt. xxvi. 42 ("except I drink it") " except" 
is retained; Mark x. 30 ("but he shall receive") "but" is 
retained; as also at John v. 19, "the Son can do nothing 
of himself but what he seeth the Father do.'.' Now this 
passage in John is perfectly parallel with that here in Gala- 
tians, as regards the construction of edv jxrj. " The Son 
can do nothing of himself [this is absolute; 'nor can he 
do anything at all']; but what he seeth the Father do, that 
the Son doeth." If in English we put " save" for "but," 
we must either supply the ellipsis or we come to the absurd 
statement; — "the Son can do nothing of himself save what 
he seeth the Father do, that the Son doeth of himself;" for 
the last clause is made an exception out of the first proposi- 
tion, taken as it stands. This is the same sort of absurdity 



GALATIANS. 149 

as actually follows from their translation here in Galatians — 
a translation which is not only at war with itself, but with 
the whole context, and with the whole strain of the apostle's 
teaching in this epistle. We submit that the meaning of 
the apostle is, " A man is not justified by (the) works of 
(the) law [this is absolute; 'nor is a man justified at all 
save'] ; but through the faith of Jesus Christ ; and by that 
we are justified, and not by (the) works of (the) law ; for 
by (the) works of (the) law shall no flesh be justified." In 
both these cases, John v. 19 and Gal. ii. 16, the Vulgate has 
nisi for eav p.rf. But in both cases, Wiclif, Tyndal, Cranmer, 
the Geneva, and even the Rhemish version read " but" (with 
our A. V.) ; and the last cannot be supposed to have been 
warped by any predilection for the doctrine of justification 
by faith only. 

There are several cases of the use of ei }xr) perfectly cor- 
responding to the foregoing cases of eav jxtj : e.g., Luke 
iv. 26, 27; Rev. xxi. 27; Rom. xiv. 14. It is remarkable 
that, in the two instances in St. Luke, while the A. V. has 
" save" and " saving," the Revisers have very properly, but 
very inconsistently, changed them to "but only." Also in 
that in the Revelation they have put "but only" for "but," 
which is well enough, though scarcely necessary. But in 
Rom. xiv. 14 they have capped the climax of incon- 
sistency by changing " but" into " save that ;" thus making 
the apostle say, " Nothing is unclean of itself, save that to 
him that accounteth anything to be unclean, to him it is 
unclean of itself." Whereas the "but" of the A. V. or 
their own " but only" gives the exact sense of the original, 
for both the ei jxtj (or the eav }xrj) and the ellipsis that is 
implied with it are, in English, briefly and idiomatically 
expressed by the simple "but" or " but only." 

In their corrections of the translation of ei firj given in 
the A. V., the Revisers are in many instances, as we have 
seen (Luke iv. 26, note), grossly inconsistent with them- 
selves, besides making their changes unnecessarily. 

16, 17. " Believed" for " have believed" = e7Ti(jTev(Ta- 
}xev. " We sought" for " we seek" = Zr/rovvreS. " Were 
found" for ' ' are found' ' = evpe$r}jj.ev. (?) 



150 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

19. " Died" for '* am dead" = an&avov .- but see u I 
have been crucified," next after. 

20. " In faith, the faith which is in the Son of God" for 
' ' by the faith of the Son of God' ' = iv niGrai rrj rov viov 
tov Qeov. As to "in" for "of," cf. Rev. xiv. 12. As to 
the faith, cf. Acts i. 12 ; 2 Cor. viii. 2252 Tim. i. 1 ; ii. 10 ; 
and especially iii. 15, "through faith which is in Christ 
Jesus" s= Sid tti<jT£gdS tt/S iv XpiGrcp Ir/Gov, not " through 
faith, the faith which is in Christ Jesus." 

III. 

2, 5. " By" =ei; (bis, bis), and so at verse 24, and so all 
along. 

3. " In"= dat. inst., for " by." " Perfected" for " made 
perfect ;" — faithfulness. 

6. " For righteousness" = sis 6ik. This is one of many 
instances which may be compared with Mark i. 4, where 
they put " unto" for " for." 

7. " Which be" for " which are" = " who are." What 
faithfulness required this multiplication of obsolete expres- 
sions ? 

11. " By" = iv : also at verse 19. 

17, iS, 20. "A" for "the" (covenant); "of the law;" 
no articles. " Which came" = yeyovGJl, — not " has come." 
Cf. verse 24. See also Heb. xi. 17,28 ; 2 Cor. ii. 13 ; vii. 5 ; 
John vi. 25 ; Matt. xiii. 46 ; 1 Pet. i. 20 ; Mark xv. 47 (?) ; 
— for perfects rendered as preterites. "A mediator " = 
6 jJ.eGiTr}S. 

22. " Hath shut" = avvexXsiffsv. 

23. "Faith" = n)v nicsriv .• "the law" = vofxov : 
'' should be" = " was about to be" (with A. V.). 

24. " Hath been" for " was" = yeyovsv : cf. 17. 

IV. 

3. " Were held"= rjfiev SsSovXaofitvoi, pluperfect. 

5. " Born" for " made" = yev6}A.evov (bis) ; not yeyev- 
vt}}xLvov. 

6. " Sent" for " hath sent," aorist, but (?). 

9. " Have come to know" for " have known" =yvoyrss. 



GALATIANS. 151 

12. "I beseech you, brethren," for "brethren, I beseech 
you" = ade\(poi P dtopiai v^r. Cf. 2 Thess. iii. 1. 

13. "Because of for " through." But what is the re- 
sulting sense ? Is not the meaning expressed by " through," 
or " in," or " notwithstanding ;" i.e. " though impeded 
by," or "in spite of" ? 

23. " Is born" for " was born" = yeytvvrjrat. This is 
harsh. Is not the " has been born" here historical, and 
equivalent to " was born" ? Cf. iii. 17. 

24. Here " women" may not be needed ; for the avrai 
("these") may be feminine by attraction. 

29. " He that was born" = 6 yevvr/Sele, it rightly follows 
the tense of the connection. Cf. Matt. ii. 2. 



I. "With their new text, would not the most simple and 
natural translation be : " To freedom — Christ hath made 
us free — stand fast therefore" ? or, better accommodated 
to the English idiom : " Christ hath made us free ; to free- 
dom therefore stand fast" ? The ovv stands after gt?jk6T8 
instead of eXevBepia because it is first suggested by the 
parenthetical clause. 

4. "Ye are severed" = xarrjpyrfSr/re. The A. V., with 
its inversion of subject and object, is nearer the sense of 
the original. It does not appear that Karapyeao ever means 
properly " to sever,' ' though it may express the consequences 
of severance. "'Would be justified" for "are justified" = 
8ixatov&$e : but is this translation or exposition ? " By 
the" = ev. 

5. "The Spirit," "the hope;" — no article. By their 
change of construction, in avoiding one ambiguity they 
have fallen into another. Why not say : " For we through 
the Spirit await by faith the hope of righteousness" ? 

7. They say "should not" for the accusative with the 
infinitive, and not "did not." 

13. "Be servants" = SovXev ere : — not " bond- servants," 
as elsewhere; see iv. 1, 8, etc. "Your freedom" = rrjv 
e'XevB'epiav. (?) Why not also " your love" for rr/Z aya7trj?? 

I I. " Is fulfilled" = 7t87t\r]pGDTai (for nXrfpovrai). " The 



152 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

whole law" for "all the law" = 6 7taS vojjloS. Cf. Eph. iv. 
16 — note. 

16 and 25. " By the Spirit" for "in the Spirit" =IIv£Vfj.ari. 
But see iii. 3, where they render the same word " in the 
Spirit." "The" (thrice) for no article, "the Spirit," "the 
lust of the flesh ;" while, in the next verse the Greek has 
the articles with all these. Yet no distinction is made. 

24. " Have crucified' ' = earavpooffav. Why did they not 
say " crucified" ? Is it not the aorist tense? Cf. Rom. vi. 
6, 8; 2 Cor. v. 14 ; Col. iii. 3. "Thereof," — better "its (pas- 
sions and lusts)." 

VI. 

I. " A spirit" for " the spirit" = iv nv^vfxan. 

II. " Have written," marg., "write," — aorist. 

13. " Keep" = cpv\aO<jovoiv : cf. Luke xi. 21 ; John xvi 1. 
12 ; Acts xii. 4 ; xxviii. 16 ; 2 Thess. iii. 3 ; 1 Tim. vi. 20 ; 
2 Tim. i. 12, 14 ; 1 John v. 21 and Jude 24 ; — where they 
render it" guard." Their faithfulness must have exercised 
the most wonderful discrimination, as will be seen by such 
cases as 2 Tim., 1 John, and Jude, above cited, and by com- 
paring, say, Acts xxviii. 16 with xxii. 20 and xxiii. 35. — 
These may be trifles, but they are changes, and, if of no 
importance, are wanton. "The law;" marg., " a law." 
Why especially here? 

14. "Hath been crucified" for "is crucified" = effrav- 
pojrai. Cf. v. 14, etc. 

18. For displacement of "brethren" here, cf. 2 Thess. 
iii. 1. 

EPHESIANS. 

I. 

10. "In the heavens" for " in heaven" = iv roTs ovpavoiS. 
But see the Lord's Prayer, etc. 

11. "Having been foreordained" for "being predesti- 
nated" = 7tpoopiG$tvT£?, and so at verse 13 ; but see verse 
18 and ii. 20, for the tense. 

13. "The Holy Spirit" for "that Holy Spirit ;"— the 



EPHESIANS. I S3 

order of the Greek is, "the Spirit of promise,"the Holy." 
Cf. verse 19. 

14.. "An earnest" for " the earnest" = appafiaav r?)s, in 
predicate. But immediately after they render "the re- 
demption" and "the praise" without Greek article and 
followed by rf}s. Cf. Gal. ii. 8. 

17. "A spirit" for "the spirit," and then "the knowl- 
edge," without article. 

iS. " Having the eyes enlightened" = 7t£(pGDri<jfxevov<S. 
Did they suppose, or would they make us think, that this 
English is also a perfect participle ? But cf. iv. 18. 

19. "That" for " the" = rr/v. But cf. verses 13 and 14, 
where they put " the" for " that" in a perfectly similar con- 
struction and with a similar exposure to ambiguity. 



II. 



2. " Aforetime" for " in time past." Why ? 

3. " Lived" for " had our conversation"^ ave<rrpa(pfj/j.6v. 
Cf. 2 Cor. i. 12. Is "having our conversation" any more 
obsolete or unintelligible than " or" for " ere"? 

8. "Have been saved" for "are saved" =sgts 6£6go6- 
jxLvoi. Compare "are being saved" for the present parti- 
ciple. To what, then, shall " are saved" correspond ? And 
see Gal. iv. 3, where they render a pluperfect passive " were 
held," not " had been held." 

12. "Alienated from" for "aliens from" = a7Tijk\o- 
rpiGjjJtevoi. Which is the true sense ? And they do not 
say " having been alienated" for the perfect participle, but 
"(being) alienated." Cf. verse 8. 

20. "Being built" = £7toiHoSopir}$rerTes : but cf . 15 and 
16, "having slain," etc., and i. it. 

21. "Each several building" for "all the building" (new 
reading). What is the probable sense ? Christ is the one 
chief corner-stone on which they are all built, verse 20. 
Cf. also iii. 15. The several parts of one building or temple 
are not "several buildings." 



154 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 



III. 

15. "Every family" for "the whole family" = 7ta6a 
narpia. Are we to suppose there are several families 
{fatherhoods) in heaven, as there are here upon earth ? One 
can hardly help thinking that naaa narpia may here be 
rendered after the analogy of naS oixoS Iapar/X, "all the 
house of Israel ;" and that iv ovpavois nai ini yr/S may be 
equivalent to a denning genitive. Cf. 1 Pet. v. 1. 

16. " Inward man" for " inner man." (?) 



IV. 

1. "Calling" for "vocation." "Called" immediately 
follows. Cf. Matt. xxii. 3, — "to call the bidden" and not 
" to call the called." The Revisers can sometimes study 
a euphonious variety. 

12. "For the" = npo s" rov: "unto the" = £z's without 
article (twice). Why not " a work of ministering" and " a 
building up of the body of Christ" ? 

14. "By," "in," — both = iv in coordinate succession; 
" by sleight," " in craftiness," — force of idiom. 

16. "All the body" for "the whole body" = nav to 
6GDfxa. But see Gal. v. 14, where we have just the reverse 
change, "the whole law" for "all the law ;" and Acts xx. 
27, "the whole counsel" for "all the counsel;" and cf. 
Matt. viii. 32 ; Luke i. 10 ; Rom. viii. 22, and Mark xvi. 15. 

18. " Being darkened" = ianoriajxivoi. They construe 
with ovtsS, it is true ; but that makes no difference ; it is 
still a perfect tense. " Alienated," i.e., " being alienated " 
= anr/WorpiGjpitvoi, immediately follows. Why not 
" having been" in both cases? Cf. ii. 8. 

24. "Hath been created" for " is created;" both are forms 
for the perfect, but rov nria^kvra = " which was created." 
Cf. Rom. vi. C, 8, etc. 

32. "Forgave" for "hath forgiven" = ixapiaaro. Cf. 
Phil. i. 29, where they give us "hath been granted" for 
"is granted" = ixaplGBrj. 



PHILIPPIA NS. 155 

V. 

1. " Imitators" for " followers ;" " beloved" for" dear." (?) 

6. "Empty" for « vain." (?) 

7. " Be" = yivaeSa : not " become." Why? 

10. " Well-pleasing" for " acceptable ;" but see Rom. xii. 
1, 2, where they render "acceptable." 

12, 20. Are the inversions here necessary ? Are they not 
rather wanton, and much to the damage of the English ? 
Cf. 2 Peter iii. 1. 

25. " For it" = vrttp avrrj? : but cf. vi. 19, " on my be- 
half" for " for me," etc., etc. 

26. " With the word"= iv pr/juan. 

32. " In regard of" for " concerning" = sis. Would not 
"as to" or "in relation to" have been better, if we must 
have a change ? 

VI. 

9. "And forbear" for " forbearing" = avi&vres. But 
see a contrary change at v. 26. 

17. " The word of God" = pi)jxa Qsov, why not " God's 
word," or " a word of God "? Cf. Acts iv. 36, etc. 

PHILIPPIANS. 

I. 

1. Why not say " with bishops and deacons "? — No article. 

4, 5. " On behalf of" for " for" = vrtep. Cf. Eph. v. 25. 
" For" = iiti : and "in furtherance of" = eis. Better say 
" for" for V7tap, " upon" for eVrz, and "as to" or "unto" 
for sis : cf. verse 12 and Col. iv. 11, 

22. " Wot not" =ov yvGQpiByGO : marg. , "do not make 
known;" better " cannot tell." — " Je ne saurais dire." 

25. "Abide, yea and abide" for "abide and continue" 
= ft6VGOHai7rapa/xevdo. (?) They render itapocfxkvGD " con- 
tinue," usually; — see Heb. vii. 23; James i. 25; and 
whence comes "yea"? "In the faith" for " of faith" = 
trfS 7ti6T8G0<S. — Render : " for your progress and the joy of 
your faith"? 



156 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

29. " It hath been granted" for " it is given" = sxapia^t]. 
Cf. Eph. iv. 32 ; and see " it is written." 

II. 

1. The interchange of " comfort" and " consolation" is 
consequential ; but it is not necessary and is no improve- 
ment here. 

3. " Faction" for " strife" = spiSsiav : and so elsewhere, 
but is it necessary ? 

6. " Counted it not a prize to be on an equality with 
God," etc. Suggestion of the American Revisers better. 
And observe that aorist participles with aorist verbs are 
rendered present, just as the present participle is. 

9. " Wherefore also God" for " wherefore God also." Is 
their "also" in its logical position after all? "God also" 
would be according to their usual rule in relation to the 
Greek order. But would it not be better, if we must make 
a change, to retain the translation by the perfect, and say : 
" Wherefore God hath also," etc. ? 

16. "In the day of Christ" = si? rjju. Xp. — " Unto a glory- 
ing for me at the day," i.e. "when I come to the day," etc. 
" In vain" — sis nsvov. 

22. " In furtherance of " for " in"=fz£ : — " unto" or "as 
to" (the Gospel). 

24. "I myself also" for " I also myself " = uai avTof. 

27. "That not" for "lest" =iva )xr) : cf. 1 Tim. iii. 7, 
and Rev. xvi. 15, etc. 

29. "Joy" for "gladness," and "honor" for "reputa- 
tion." Such are instances of excruciating faithfulness. 

28. "I have sent" for " I sent," — an aorist! This is an 
extraordinary correction of an aorist tense ; and one is curi- 
ous to know how they reasoned it out. 

30. Here observe that " service" towards the Apostle is 
(with the A. V.) made the rendering of Xsirovpyia. 

III. 

12. "Have obtained" = s\ afiov .• and "am made per- 
fect = rsrsXsioDjxai. Cf. John xvii. 



PHILIPPIANS. 157 

15. " Even this shall God reveal" for " God shall reveal 
even this"! Cf. 2 Cor. v. 20, etc. 

16. " Have attained," — an aorist. 

18. " Told often" for "have told often," — an aorist. 

19. " Earthly things" = ra eniy^ia. (Article.) 

20. " A Saviour" for "the Saviour" == ^corrfpa } in ap- 
position with Kvpwvz= " the Lord" ? 

21. " Body of his glory" for "his glorious body." But 
this is ambiguous ; does it mean that his glory has a body ? 
In ordinary English we should scarcely use such an expres- 
sion in any other sense. 

IV. 

2. " Exhort" for " beseech" (bis) === TtapaHaXdo. So also 
at 1 Thess. iv. 10; 1 Tim. i. 3 ; Heb. xiii. 19, 22 ; and "ex- 
hort" for " intreat," 1 Tim. v. 1 ; but " intreat" for "ex- 
hort," 2 Cor. ix. 5, where " exhort" suits as well as here. 
They have also "exhort" for "desire," 2 Cor. xii. 18; 
they retain " beseech" at Matt. viii. 5, 31, 34; xiv. 36; 
Mark i. 40; they put " beseech" where "exhort" might 
be as well as here, Acts xxi. 12; xxvii. $$ y 34; Rom. xii. 
1; xvi. 17; Eph. iv. 1 ; 1 Cor. i. 10; xvi. 12, 15 ; cf. Heb. 
xiii. 22, and 1 Peter ii. 11. They put "intreat" for "be- 
seech," Luke viii. 31, 32 — cf. Matt. viii. 31, 34; 2 Cor. vi. 1 ; 
x. 1, and retain "intreat," Luke xv. 28. They put "in- 
treat" for " desire," Acts ix. 38; xxviii. 14; and " intreat" 
for "pray," Acts xxiv. 4. They put " beseech" for "de- 
sire," Acts viii. 31; xix. 31; and "beseech" for "pray," 
Acts xvi. 9 ; Matt. xxvi. 53 ; Mark v. 18. — Surely if there 
were " faithful' ' reasons for all these changes hither and 
thither, they must be very fine-drawn. 

3. "Beseech" for " entreat" = ipoorw. But they have 
"ask" for "beseech" at Luke vii. 3; viii. 37; John xix. 
31 ; — "ask" for "desire" at Luke xiv. 32 ; John xii. 21; 
Acts xviii. 20; xxiii. 20 ; and "desire" is retained at Luke 
vii. 36; — "ask" for ^pray" at Acts xxiii. 18, and "pray" 
is retained at John xvii. 9, 15, 20. At 1 Thess. iv. 1, 
" beseech" = epGorc^jusv, and " exhort" = 7tapanakov}XBv. 
This may explain their renderings in these two verses in 



158 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

Philippians, where the same two words are, not indeed in 
juxtaposition, but in near proximity to each other. But that 
could hardly be a sufficient reason for requiring a change 
here, considering the great variety of renderings they have 
given these words elsewhere. 

" For they" for "which" =ai'Tive$. This they elsewhere 
render "who" or " which," and the change is not required 
here, — "whose" (gov) immediately following involves the 
same use of the relative, — while at Matt. vii. 15 such 
a change would have been very much to the purpose. Cf. 
Col. ii. 23 and 2 Thess. i. 9, etc. 

8. Where did the Revisers get the marginal reading of 
"gracious" for €V(p?jjua? The whole question is, whether 
we should say "of good report" or "of good import," 
whether the word is to be taken in an active or a passive 
sense. 

10. "Rejoice" for " rejoiced" = exocp^v. ("Gr." in 
marg. ) But cf. Mark xi. 24 and xiii. 20. This is another 
remarkable change in the rendering of an aorist. In the 
9th verse the perfects of A. V. were better than their pre- 
terites; as in the 10th verse they say, "have revived" = 
avsB-dXets (better and more faithful was the A. V., "have 
caused to flourish again") ; and in the nth and 12th verses 
they put "have learned" alike for e'jxa^ov and for 
jdspivr/piai. Cf. John xvii. 

19. " Every need of yours" for " all your need" = naGav 
Xpsiav vjagov. Articular nicety ? 

COLOSSIANS. 

I. 

5. "In the heavens" for " in heaven" = sv roi$ ovpavoiZ. 
Cut see Matt. v. 12, 45, and the Lord's Prayer. 

6. "For you" = V7tep f — not "in your behalf." We 
make this and the like notes, because the Revisers so often 
and needlessly substitute "in behalf of" for the simple 
" for" of the A. V., as a translation of vnep. 

12. "Made" for "hath made;" also "delivered" and 
" translated ;" but followed by " we have." 



COLOSSIANS. 159 

16,20. "The heavens," "*the earth," for "heaven," 
"earth." Cf. the Lord's Prayer, Mark ii. 10, etc., etc. 
"Things visible and things invisible" = td opard nai rd 
do par a : but what of the article ? Cf . the faithful correc- 
tion at iii. 2, — " the things that are" for "things." 

22. " Hath reconciled," — an aorist. 

26. " Hath been manifested," — an aorist. 

27. "Was pleased to" for " would" = rfBiXtfasv = 
"willed to," " it was God's will to." 

29. " Which worketh' ' = rrjv ivepyovjj.svrjv, without any 
marginal alternate. 

II. 

1. " Would have you know' ' for " would that ye knew ;" 
but see Luke xix. 14; 1 Tim. ii. 4. 

3. "In whom are all . . . hidden" for " in whom are hid 
all ... " The A. V. is better English, if the R. V. is 
better Greek. Which do we want ? The sense remains the 
same. 

4. "That no one" for "lest any man;" how faithful! 
but see 1 Tim. iii. 7 ; Rev. xvi. 15, etc. 

5. "In the flesh" = rPj aapni (as to the flesh). 

7. " Builded" for "built," — excruciating faithfulness! 
And yet "our Father which," and "we be." "Your 
faith' ' for " the faith' ' = rij 7tiarsi. (?) 

8. " His philosophy" = TrjZ cpiXoaocpia^. (?) 

ti. "Were circumcised" for " are (have been) circum- 
cised" = 7tepieT/xrj$r/Te. (?) 

12. " Were raised' ' for "are risen." Cf. Matt, xxviii. 6, 
etc. " Raised" for "hath raised (Christ)" is right, for this 
is historical. 

13. " Did quicken" for " hath he quickened." (?) 

14. " Nailing" = n po6rfkoD6 aS : but above they have 
translated aorist participles in connection with preterite 
verbs, — "having been buried," for "buried," "having blot- 
ted" for "'blotting;" and below they say, — "having put 
off," and then "triumphing over." 

iS. " By a voluntary humility" for " in," etc. = $£\gqv iv 
Ta7teivocppo6vvri. 



160 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

20. "Died" for "be dead,' 1 — the aorist. (?) 
23. " But are not of any value against the indulgence of 
the flesh;" — a very doubtful rendering of a very difficult 
passage, and " indulgence" (= n\r}G )xovr)v} is without arti- 
cle in the Greek ; — "not in any honour or reverence, — to 
an indulgence of the flesh;" i.e., "not in any reverence 
towards God, — rather and really to a greater indulgence of 
the flesh." For construction see 2 Tim. ii. 14. 



III. 

1. "Were raised" for "be risen" (so [3] "died" for 
"are dead"); "is seated" for " sitteth" = effrzv . , . 
ytaSrjuavoS : — say "is sitting," if we must make a change. 

2. " The things that are" for "things" (bis) =rd. But 
cf. i. 20. 

5. "The which" for " which" = rjri? : also 1 Tim. i. 4. 
But cf. ii. 23, etc. 

7. " In the which" (so A. V.) =iv oh : also at verse 15. 

10. "Is being renewed" = avaxaivovjuevov. (?) Cf. 
Luke xxii. 19, 20, etc., etc. 

18. " Is fitting" = avfJHSv. 

22. "That not" for "lest;" but see again 1 Tim. iii. 7 
and Rev. xvi. 15, etc. 

IV. 

8. " Have sent," — an aorist. 

11. "Workers unto the kingdom of God"=ez£.- not 
"in furtherance of." Cf. Phil. i. 4, 5. 

12. 13. " For you" =vnlf> v/tcdv, not " in your behalf." 

15. "The church that" for "the church which" (is in 
their house) ; — amazing faithfulness ! Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 12, 
"the Spirit which"; iii. 10, "the grace which"; iv. 6, 
"the things which" ; etc., etc. And see 2 Cor. i. 4, note. 

16. "Hath been read" for "is read" = avayvGoa^tj : 
but see " it is written." 

17. " Hast received," — an aorist. 



7. THESSALONIANS. 161 



I. THESSALONIANS. 



5. " How that" for " for" = on. (?) Marg. " Fulness" 
(for " assurance") = nXr/pocpopia : but see new reading at 
Col. iv. 12, 7tsn\r]poq)opr/piev 01, rendered, without marginal 
alternate, "fully assured," instead of the "complete" of 
the A. V. " Showed ourselves" for " were" = eyevrj^rffAev. 

9. " A living and true God" for " the," etc. Cf. 1 Tim. 
iv. 10; Heb. xii. 22: Rev. vii. 2. 



II. 

1. "Hath been found' for " was" = yeyovs v. But see 
Gal. iii. 17, and see here the development in subsequent 
preterites. 

2. " Waxed bold" for " were bold" = 87tapprfaia(jafxe^a. 
But see Acts xiii. 46, corrected just contrariwise. 

5. " Were found using" for " used" = syevrjSrffxsv. 

13. "We also" for "also we" (thank God). 

14. "Which are in Judea in Christ Jesus" for "which 
in Judea are in Christ Jesus" — oh, faithfulness ! 

15. The antecedent of " who" is doubtful ; in consistency 
they should have said, "for the Jews both killed," etc. Cf. 
Phil. iv. 3, where their change is not needed. 

18. "Once and again" = anaB, uai dis, — "once and 
twice;" but see "two witnesses or three." 



III. 

5. "Sent that I might know" for " sent to know" = si; 
to yvdovai. 

11. " May our God direct." The added "may" is not 
needed ; see the Lord's Prayer, and the next verse (12), 
where (with the A. V.) they say "and the Lord make," 
without any " may." 



1 62 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 



IV. 

i, 3, 4. The needless omission of would and should makes 
the sense less clear. 

9. ''That one write unto you" for "that I," etc. But 
see their translation at James i. 27, etc. The A. V. could 
not use this "one" in 161 1. 

14. " That are fallen asleep" = rovS noipirj^erra?, — not 
"that slept." So for the saints in general; but "Jesus 
died" (a7zi$av£) is right, for this is historical. Cf. 2 Cor. 
v. 14, etc. 

V. 

1. " Concerning the times" for " of ;" — faithfulness ! 

6. Queer e — whether "the others" would not be better 
than "the rest," which they use here and elsewhere. 

13. " Exceeding highly" for " very highly" = vnlp ek- 
7tepi66ov. A very exceeding superfluity of faithfulness. 

15. " Unto any one evil for evil" for " evil for evil unto 
any man" ! And the A. V. is in the Greek order. 

16. "Rejoice alway" for " rejoice evermore." Cf. Phil, 
iv. 4, and its marg. " Farewell." 



II. THESSALONIANS. 

I. 

9. " Who" = oinves. Why not say "for they"? Cf. 
Phil. iv. 3. There is more danger of misunderstanding 
here than there. 

10. " To be marvelled at' ' for " to be admired" = Savjxot- 
(jSrfvai. " Admired" is according to the later usage of the 
Greek; and is it not better here? 

11. "Desire (or marg. 'good pleasure') of goodness." 
Whose desire ? Whose goodness ? 

II. 

1. " Concerning" for " by" = vnep. Would not " upon," 
or " by reason of," or " in view of" be better ? 



/. TIMOTHY. 1 63 

2. " To the end that" for " that" = eit to, etc. Is not this 
illogical ? It answers to why and not to what ; and it would 
remain to know what he beseeches of them after all. " Is 
now present" for "is at hand" = iv&o~T?]K£v, — "is immi- 
nent." Has this word lately lost this meaning? 

7. "There is one that restraineth now" =0 narkxoov 
apri. Why not say "he that restraineth (or 'the re- 
strainer') restraineth now" ? Cf. 6 aneipGov^ " the sower.'' 

10. " Are perishing" for " perish." (?) 

13. " For that" for "because" = or 1. Is the sense any 
clearer ? Is the English any better ? 

15. "So then" for " therefore" = apa ovv. The same 
questions may be asked again. 

16. " Loved" and "gave" for "hath," etc. (?) 

III. 

1. "Brethren, pray" = 7tpo68vx£60e, adeXcpoi. Why 
did they not follow the Greek order, and say " pray 
brethren" ? Cf. Gal. iv. 12 ; vi. 18; Matt. xxvi. 22, 25. 

2. " All have not faith "=ot> 7tavrss, not 7Tavres ov. Why 
not follow both the Greek and good logic — and good Eng- 
lish too — and say " not all men have (the) faith" ? Cf. Heb. 
ii. 5 and 1 Cor. vi. 12. 

I. TIMOTHY. 

I. 

2. " My true child in faith' ' = yvrjaiop rexvop iv rciarei 
= "a true child in the faith;" — cf. 1 Thess. i. 9. There 
is neither " my" nor " the" with " child," and the Revisers 
are themselves accustomed to insert the article after iv. 

3. " Exhorted" for "besought " Why? See Phil. iv. 2. 
(note). " Charge" = napayytWoo. This rendering is here 
retained ; but "command" is put for " charge" at v. 7, and 
is retained at iv. 11 ; also at 2 Thess. iii. 4, 6, 10, 12 ; Luke 
viii. 29 ; ix. 21 ; Acts xvii. 30 ; Mark viii. 6 ; — while 
"charge" is put for "command" at Matt. x. 5 ; Mark vi. 
8 ; Acts i. 4; iv. 18 ; v. 28,40 ; x. 42 ; xv. 5 ; xvi. 18 ; xxiii. 



1 64 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

30; 1 Cor. vii. 10 ; 1 Thess. iv. 11 ; 1 Tim. i. 5 ; and is re- 
tained at Luke viii. 56 ; v. 14 ; Acts xvi. 23 ; xxiii. 22 ; 1 
Tim. vi. 13, 17. This is one of the words which seems to 
have been a special exercise to the Revisers' faithfulness ; 
but the ground of their distinctions it is hard to divine. Cf. 
e.g. Mark vi. 8 with viii. 6; or 1 Cor. vii. 10 with 2 Thess. 
iii. 4, 6, 10, 12 and 1 Tim. iv. 11 ; v. 7. 

4. "The which" for " which" = ai'tires, — also Col. iii. 
5. But see oitives, 2 Thess. i. 9 ; Heb. xiii. 7, etc., where 
they say simply ''who" or "which." 

5. "Charge" for "commandment" = rtapayyeXiaZ. (?) 

7. "Though they understand" for "understanding." 
The A. V. is literally correct. Cf. Heb. vi. 6, " if they shall 
fall away" changed to "and then fell away," to render an 
aorist participle. 

9. "As knowing this" for "knowing this = siSgoS 
rovro. The "as" is not even italicized. " Law" for "the 
law," but what is the difference? Both must here mean 
law in general. 

10. " Doctrine," marg. " teaching," = Sid a axaXia. But 
see iv. 6 — with no marg. reading. It is extremely difficult 
for the uninitiated to apprehend the nice distinctions of 
such faithfulness. 

17. "Incorruptible" for "immortal" = acpdapTGp, — of 
God? 

18. " By them" = iv avraH. 

19. "Made" for "have made." (?) 

II. 

2. "Tranquil and quiet" for "quiet and peaceable," (?) 
or, say, "peaceful" ? 

4. " Willeth that" for "will have to ;" but see 1 Cor. x. 1 
and Col. ii. 1 ; corrected contrariwise. 

III. 

2. " Without reproach" for " blameless" = avS7ri\r)7trov 
= blameless, or unblamable, or irreproachable, i.e. (that 
ought) not to be attacked or blamed. Cf. verse 10 and iv. 



I. TIMOTHY. 165 

4 ; and see, by analogy, Col. i. 22 and 1 Thess. iii. 13. 
"The husband of one wife," — no article ; cf. verse 12. 

3. "No brawler" for "not given to wine" = napoivov. 
Marg. of A. V., — " i.e., not ready to quarrel and offer wrong 
as one in wine." The Revisers leave the wine out entirely. 

7. Lest" = i'va ^77, —not "that not," and so at Rev. xvi. 
15. But cf. Col. iii. 22 ; ii. 4 ; Phil. ii. 27 ; Heb. iv. 11, 
etc., etc. See note John xii. 35. 

12. "Husbands of one wife" for "the husbands," etc. 
But cf. verse 2. Whether the subject be " deacons" or " the 
deacons' ' can make no difference in the predicate. 

15. "The church," "the pillar," — no article in Greek. 

IV. 

2. " Through" = iv. Here their whole construction is 
doubtful ; cf. verses 2 and 3. 

10. " The living God" = erti Osgd S,govti. 

13. " To reading," etc. — articles omitted thrice ; cf. " the 
weeping and gnashing." "Teaching" for "doctrine" = 
didaanaXia. Do they eschew doctrine altogether? 

V. 

7. "Without reproach," again, for "blameless." See 
iii. 2 (note). 

9. " Having been /' why italicized ? It is the translation 
of yeyovvia, if that is translated at all. 

11. "They desire to marry" for "they will marry" = 
yajj.eiv SeXovaiv. (" They choose to marry" or "are bent 
upon marrying.") 

VI. 

1. "The doctrine" for "his doctrine." (?) 

2. "" Partake of the benefit" = avriXa/j,/3av6jxsvoi. Bet- 
ter " reap the benefit," i.e. the masters do ? 

9. " Desire to be rich" for "will be rich;" — /.^.will to 
be, or aim or seek to be, — lay their plans and make their 
efforts to be; — it is more than an idle " desire." There is 
no ambiguity in the A. V. according to the laws of good 
English. The "they that" is here indefinite, like "-who- 
ever." 



1 66 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

10. "A root" for " the root," — predicate; but the Re- 
visers familiarly render anarthrous predicates with the Eng- 
lish article. See above iii. 2, 15 ; iv. 10 ; and John ix. 5, 
etc., etc. "A root of all evils" or " of all the evils" 
{navroDv tgov kolkgdv, which they render "all kinds of 
evil," forgetting their faithfulness with "all the nations") 
either is nonsense or is subject to much the same difficulty in 
its strictly universal application which was supposed to be 
involved in " the root of all evil." Instead of being the uni- 
versal cause, it simply becomes a universal con-cause. But the 
definite article in English is not absolutely exclusive, and 
the apostle's words are not to be interpreted with mathe- 
matical rigor. The A. V. has given the natural English 
expression for the apostle's meaning: " The love of money 
is the root of all evil," — an expression whose rhetorical 
character and simple sense are perfectly clear to every com- 
mon-sense reader. 

14. " Without reproach/' again, for " unrebukable. ' ' See 
iii. 2. 

17. " Have their, hope set" = r/k7tinkvai. But this is not 
the English perfect ; that would be, " have set their hope." 
Did they mean to throw a little dust in our eyes ? 

21. "Have erred," — anaorist. 

II. TIMOTHY. 



1. " The promise of the life which" for " the promise of 
life which" = €7tayye\iav ZgdtjS rrjs .- they do not say " of 
life, even the life which." But cf. Gal. ii. 20. 

3. ie My" ior " my /' neither pronoun nor article in the 
Greek. " Supplications" for "prayers" = deijGeai : — con- 
sequential. 

5. " Having been reminded" for "when I call to remem- 
brance" = vitojxvriGiv \a floor = "while I call (or having 
called) to remembrance." "In thee also" for "that in 
thee also," on not being rendered or atione' recta. 

6. "For the which cause" for " wherefore" = di r/v 
airiav. Wherefore, with "the which" and all ? At Eph. 



II. TIMOTHY. 167 

v. 31, "for this cause" stands for avrl rovrov. At Tit. i. 
13, "for which cause" = Si ?)v airiav. 

8. "Suffer hardship with the gospel" for "be partaker 
of the afflictions of the Gospel ;" — is it not rather "be par- 
taker (with me) of afflictions for the Gospel" ? — the "with" 
is not with the gospel but with me j see ii. 3. 

10. " Hath been manifested" for " is made manifest" = 
(pav£pGQ$8i6av. But cf. 2 Cor. v. 11, where "we are made 
manifest" renders the perfect of the same verb. 

12. "Yet" for " nevertheless" = aXXa, — this is not ill, — 
if some change must be made. But it is strange they should 
have forgotten their favorite "howbeit;" which they are 
accustomed to substitute for "but" in rendering aXXa, as 
at John v. 34 ; viii. 26 ; xix. 34 ; Acts v. 13 ; 1 Cor. x. 5 ; 
xiv. 19 ; Phil. iii. 7 ; 1 Tim. i. 13. 



II. 

6. " The first" for " first" = 7tptirov. 

9. " Malefactor" for " evil-doer" = KaxovpyoS. Conse- 
quential ; but is it necessary ? Is it any improvement ? 

10. Cf. "the salvation which" with Gal. ii. 20. 

11. " Faithful is the saying" for " it is a faithful saying ;" 
and so, often ; but what's the faithful difference ? " Died" 
for " be dead;" but note the connection following. 

17. "Gangrene" for "canker." So, the margin of the 
A. V. ; but qucere f 

18. " Men who" for "who" = oirives. But see 2 Thess. 
i. 9 ; Eph. iv. 19 ; also Rom. iv. 18; not to say Matt. vii. 15. 
" Have erred" = r]aroxy]<3<xv. 

19. " Howbeit" for "nevertheless" =/xevroi. This is 
also the favorite translation for ttXt/v, aXXa, /xev ovv, 
etc., etc. 

24. "The Lord's servant" for "the servant of the Lord." 
If they proposed to make any difference, they should have 
said "a servant of the Lord." See Matt. x. 24, and cf. 
Matt. xvii. 22 ; xxv. 31 ; James i. 20; Acts vii. 35; Rev. 
viii. 4. 

26. Read — "They having been taken captive by the 



1 68 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION: 

devil, may recover themselves out of his snare unto the will 
of God'" ? Cf. Tit. iii. 4; and Matt. xxvi. 24. 



III. 

10. "Thou didst follow" for " hast fully known." The 
Greek text is changed for the tense; but see the context for 
the sense. 

12. " Would" for " will" = 01 OtXovres. But cf. Matt, 
xxiii. 4 — "they will not move them," and Acts xxv. 9 — 
11 wilt thou go up?" 

16. " Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable," 
etc. = 7ta(ja ypacpi 1 } d^onvBvaroi xal aocptXipio^ k.t.X. 
The marginal reading, which is substantially the same as 
that of the A. V., is by all means to be preferred : for (1) the 
natural use of the Mai, in its ordinary sense, is, to connect 
OeoTtrevGToS and cocptXi/Ao^ and thus they of course fall into 
the predicate ; — and, in any event, the " is," which remains 
to be inserted somewhere, may quite as properly be inserted 
before the " inspired" as after it. (2) Even if the " inspired 
of God" is put before the "is," it must still have a predica- 
tive and not an attributive character, — not " every God- 
inspired scripture" (that would be na6a 0so7rvev(TTO^ 
ypacpij), nor " every scripture which is inspired of God" 
(that would require ?) deoTtvevGroZ), but "every scripture 
being inspired of God" (as it is); cf. Heb. v. 1, "Every 
high priest being taken from among men" (as he is), — not 
"which is taken," etc.; so also Heb. iv. 2, "because they 
were not united," — not "them which were not united." 
And thus the sense (though not clearly expressed in the 
Revisers' text) will remain substantially the same after all 
their unnatural change of construction. 

It is noticeable that they render uai GocpeXijioS "also 
profitable" and not "profitable also." But see their pains- 
taking corrections in the construction of "also," e.g. at 1 
Thess. ii. 13, "we also" for "also we" = ual ??pteiS. — cf. 
Heb. iv. 12, 13, where they do not say: "The word of God 
living is also active," and "all things naked are also laid 
open." Why then adopt this strange construction just here ? 



TITUS. 169 

IV. 

6. ''Am already being offered" =7^77 67tkv§0)xai. Is 
this better English than to say "I am now offered"? — if in- 
deed the A. V. need be changed at all. " Is come" for " is 
at hand" = €cpe a rt) >hs. (?) 

10. Preterites for perfects ; but with Crescens and Titus 
are not perfects much more naturally to be understood ? 

TITUS. 
I. 

1-4. The rendering of articles here is worthy of examina- 
tion. Why is it "the truth which," and then " eternal life, 
which," and then " the message which," and then " my true 
son," and then "a common faith"? "When" for "after 
that" = ore: cf. 1 Cor. xiii. 11. 

6. " That believe" for " faithful" = mar a. (?) 

7. "God's steward" for "the steward of God." But 
what is the difference? Is this rendering given in such 
cases because the Greek is without the article ? But if the 
A. V. expressed the exact sense, did faithfulness require a 
change of the form ? 

8. "A lover of good." Good what ? They might have 
said " of that which is good" (or " of good things") or " of 
good men ;" but must it not be one or the other ? 

11. "Men who" for " who" = oiriveS. See 2 Tim. ii. 18 
(note). 

13. " For which cause" for " wherefore" = di t)v airiav. 
At 2 Tim. i. 6, they say " for the which cause" for the same 
Greek. What becomes then of their boasted and pains- 
taking uniformity of rendering, as with " straightway," for 
example ? And wherefore make any change either there or 
here, the sense remaining the same ? 

15. "Are defiled" = jueptiavrai (perfect). 

II. 

3. " Enslaved" = Sedov\GO}A,avas = " having been en- 
slaved." Cf. Matt. v. 10. 



170 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

5. " To be . . . being in subjection to" for " to be . . , 
obedient to"= vnoTOLGOoyiLvcxZ. (?) And so at verse 9. 

7. " Ensample" for " pattern" = rv7tov. (?) 

11. " Hath appeared" — an aorist. 

III. 

3. " Aforetime" for " sometimes" = 7tore= once. 

5. " Done" =tg$v = " which were." 

6. "Poured out upon" for "shed on" = e^€x €sv - But 
see Acts ii. 17, 18 and 33, etc., where the Revisers insist upon 
"poured forth," and (17, 18) correct the "poured out " of 
the A. V. 

9. "Strifes" for "contentions" = ipei£. But at 1 Cor. i, 
11, they have left "contentions;" is the sense different 
there for the case-increment? "Fightings" for "striv- 
ings" (about the law) = fxaxoci rojAiuds (legal battles). 

15. "In faith" for " in the faith" = iv niarsi. (?) 

PHILEMON. 

8. " Have all boldness" for "might be much bold" = 
rtoWrfv 7tappr}(jiav i'xcov. (?) 

12. " Have sent back" — an aorist. 

13. " In thy behalf" for " instead of thee" = vntp. Sup- 
pose we give the simple and true rendering, " for, " and 
then let common-sense decide which is the right meaning in 
this connection ? 

19. " Write" for "have written" — an aorist. "That I 
say not" for " albeit I saynot" = zW /at/ \kyoo= " not to 
say" (see 2 Cor. xii. 7 ; Phil. ii. 30 ; 2 Thess. iii. 9, etc.), 
and proceed with "that" instead of " how that" =orz. 

21. "Beyond" for "more than" = vntp : but at verse 
16, "more than" for "above," with the same case and 
vnkp. 

HEBREWS. 
I. 

1. The many and divers changes in this verse are well 
enough in themselves; but are they necessary? For the 



HEBREWS. 171 

translation of the aorist participle, cf. 1 Cor. viii. 5 ; John 
iv. 39 and v. 44, note. 

2. " In his son," marg. " a son." What occasion for this 
marginal reading ? After iv the Revisers are accustomed 
freely to insert the article ; it is, or may be, therefore, " the 
son" or "his son." 

3. " Effulgence" for " brightness." (?) " Substance" for 
"person." (?) " Sins" = tgdv dpiapriGov .• but does not 
this mean " our sins," even without the ?}jugdv ? Think of 
"the weeping and gnashing" ; and cf. "its sanctuary" at 
ix. 1, "their deliverance" at xi. 35, and "their faith" at 
xi. 40. 

7. " Who maketh his angels winds" = 7tv£Vfj,ara. This 
might be well enough in itself, but is it quite consistent ? 
At verse 13, of the angels they say : " Are they not all min- 
istering spirits" — not " winds'.' = 7tvevjj.ar a. As to the 
suggestion that " winds" and "flame of fire" are here for 
the Hebrew accusative of material, that is not likely — (1) 
from the nature of the case, which is not one of moulding 
or fashioning ; (2) from the fact that the Psalmist had just 
said, "who maketh the clouds his chariot," in a different 
order; and (3) from the fact that the Septuagint, in almost 
all cases, translate the Hebrew accusative of material with 
ix. And that "angels" and " ministers" must be accusa- 
tive subjects and not predicates appears from this, that it is, 
with ministers, " a flame of fire" or "a naming fire," and 
not "flames of fire" ; it could not be said, "he maketh a 
flame of fire his ministers." 

14. "To do service" for "to minister" =sis Siaxoviav. 
This is generally rendered by the Revisers " ministry;" see 
2 Tim. iv. ii, "for ministering" = eh Siaxoviav. They 
should rather have changed the rendering of Xeirovpyixa 
— (if they must change something) : say, e.g., " Spirits that 
do service, sent forth to minister," etc. ? 

II. 

1. " Things that were heard" — (not " have been") = roiZ 
axovedsiGi. Cf. Rom. vi. 7. 

2, " Proved" for " was" = iyevsro. (?) 



172 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

5. " Not unto angels did he" for " unto the angels hath 
he not." Why not, then, following the Greek, say, at 2 
Thess. iii. 2, " Not all men have faith" ? That would have 
been logically correct ; while here the order makes no differ- 
ence in the logic or in the sense. As for the article and the 
tense — quozre ? 

9. "Behold" for " see"= j3Xe7to/j.ev .• but they render 
this verb by "see," ten to one. 

16. " For verily not of angels doth he take hold, but he 
takethhold of the seed of Abraham." After all, this must re- 
fer to the Incarnation ,- otherwise, why say " seed of Abraham," 
and not " seed of Adam," or " mankind" ? If aiding or help- 
ing is what is meant by e7tikajj,(3averai, surely the help, the 
benefits of the salvation are for all men, and not for the " seed 
of Abraham" only ; see verse 9. Hetaketh hold of the seed 
of Abraham — he taketh to himself the seed of Abraham — the 
seed of David — that he might help, might save, mankind. For 
irtikafAfiavojioLi, cf. Matt. xiv. 31 ; Luke ix. 47 ; xxiii. 26 ; 
Acts xvi. 19 ; xvii. 19; xviii. 17; xxi. 30, 33 ; and particu- 
larly, 1 Tim. vi. 12, 19; — to lay hold on, to take to one's 
self, to take as one's own. 

III. 

5. "Afterward to be spoken" for "to be spoken after ;" 
but see iv. 8, "have spoken afterward" is put for "after- 
ward have spoken." What is the key ? Why either 
change ? Why both ? Under such criticism the A. V. is in 
hard case. 

IV. 

1. "Let us fear therefore" for " let us therefore fear." 
How consistent! Cf. Acts xxv. 17; 2 Cor. v. 20, etc. etc. 

3. "Have believed" = 7tiGTevGavTSS : " that" = tr}v : 
cf. verse 11, " that" = ine ivrjv rrjv y and verse 4, "the" for 
"this." 

6. " That some should enter thereinto" =riraS eiaeXdeiv 
sis avrr/v, — not, " that some enter." " Failed to enter in" 
for " entered not in"= ovh siffijXOov. Which is the true 



HEBREWS. 173 

rendering ? The most faithful translation need not be 
clearer than the original. 

10. "Is entered," "hath rested" — aorists. 

11. " That no man fall" for "lest any man fall." The 
difference ? But see John v. 14 ; xii. 40 ; 1 Tim. iii. 7 ; 
Matt. xvii. 27; xxvi. 5; Rev. xvi. 15, etc, 

12. "Active" for " powerful" = evepyrjS. (?) "The 
dividing" = jdSpKjjuov, — no article. 

13. " Before the' ' for " unto the' ' = rois. 

15. " But one" for " but ;" — no " one" in text. 

V. 

5. "This day" for "to-day" = ar)}xepov, and so at Acts 
xiii. 33 ; but see iv. 7, 8, and Luke xxiii. 43. 

6. " For ever" = £zY rov aidova : — no marg. 

7. " For his godly fear" = ano rrjs evhafieiaS .- A. V. 
marg., " For his piety." But quaere ? 

12. "For" = ?£<*} yap: but at iv. 2, "for indeed" for 
" for" = the same Greek. 

14. "But solid food is for full grown men" = reXeioov 
di eonv rf are pea rpocpr/ — "but for full grown men is 
the solid food." Where was their faithfulness to Greek 
order and emphasis and article? " The weeping and gnash- 
ing." 

VI. 

1. "Wherefore" for " therefore" = 616. But is this better 
English at the beginning of a paragraph? — "for which" in- 
stead of "for this" ? And see 2 Cor. iv. 13. " Let us cease 
to speak of the first principles of Christ" for " leaving the 
principles of the doctrine of Christ" = acpevre? rov rr/S 
apxrf* rov Xpiarov Xoyov. The A. V. has the advantage 
of the literal participial construction, and there is no more 
in the Greek about " speak" than about " doctrine." After 
all, have they made the sense any clearer ? 

4-6. Are the changes here necessary? Are they au- 
thorized ? It is not likely that actual historical cases are 
here described; and the Revisers have no more right to 
insert " then" before the fa/ling away than the A. V. had to 



174 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

insert " if,"— and cf. their own construction at vii. 5 and 
1 Cor. viii. 10 ; xi. 29. The present tenses in verse 6 indi- 
cate that probably the preceding aorists are conceived of as 
perfects. And immediately after, at verse 7, they render 
rj 7tiov0a " that hath drunk," — not " that drank." (!) 

10. "Not unrighteous to forget;" cf. Acts xv. 10. 
"Showed" and "ministered" for "have," etc.; followed 
by the present " still do," — was there an interval? 

11. "May show" for "do show," — infinitive with ac- 
cusative. Better, simply " show." 

12. "Imitators" for "followers." So, constantly; but 
which is the more current English ? 

13. " Since" for " because" = STtsi. Consequential. 

15. " And thus" for " and so " = nal outgo. How faith- 
ful ! " Having" for " after he had," and what of it ? 

16. " And in every dispute of theirs, the oath is final for 
confirmation," for " and an oath for confirmation is to them 
an end of all strife" = Gr., "And of all controversy to 
them the oath is an end for confirmation." The A. V. is 
quite as near the Greek as is the Revision. 

18. "Lay hold of" for " lay hold upon." (?) 

19. "Which we have as . . . a hope both sure," etc., 
for " which hope we have as . . . both sure," etc. Is 
the revised sense quite certain ? 

VII. 

6. " That hath" for " that had" =rov e'xovra, governed 
by a verb in the perfect. It means simply " the possessor," 
and so, here, "that had," if we would have natural 
English. Cf. xiii. 7 ; Rev. iv. 9, 10 and v. 1 ; also xi. 28. 

7. " Dispute " for " contradiction " = avrikoyia. 

11. " Now if" for " if therefore"= f / jitv ovv. So also at 
viii. 4. " Arise" for " rise"= avifftaaSai. " Be reckoned" 
for "be called" = Xtyeffdai, cf. ix. 2. 

16. Note: " Indissoluble {aKaraXvrov) life" is proved 
by "priest forever" (ei? rov aioova)\ therefore the last 
phrase means "everlastingly," "without end." 

18. "There is a disannulling" (so also A. V.) — not "is 



HEBRE WS. 175 

made" = yiverai. " Of a foregoing" for "of the," etc. ; — 
but a definite commandment is intended. 

20. " The taking of an -oath*' for " an oath" = 6pHGD/xo- 
criaS .- — no article; and the very same word is immediately- 
rendered "oath" simply, as in the A. V., and as also at 
verse 28. 

21, 23. "Have been made" = £z'(? ir yeyovorsZ = "have 
become," or "are (priests) having become (such)." 22. 
" Hath become" for " was made" = yeyovev. Cf. xi. 28 ; 
Gal. iii. 17; 2 Cor. ii. 13; John vi. 25, etc. 

25. "Draw near unto God" for "come to God M = 
TCpoaepxopiavovS rep Qeep : see note at x. 1 ; and cf. xi. 
6, etc. 

26. " Made= ysvojuevoS, — not "become." 

27. " Like" for "as" = GDC77tep. 

28. " Perfected" for " consecrated." (?) So the A. V. in 
margin. 

VIII. 

5. "Who," not " the which"= oirivss :" is warned when 
he is about to" = nExprjjJiariarai fxeWaov = " has been 
warned when about to." 

IX. 

1. "Now even" for " then verily . . . also" =/*£*' ovv 
ncci. It is nothing strange that the first covenant, because it 
was first, should have ordinances of divine service ; and so 
the "even" would seem out of place. Note the revised ren- 
dering of ro rs ayiov hoct/xixov : — "its sanctuary, a sanc- 
tuary of this world" for "a worldly sanctuary." What a 
contortion in order to avoid putting "a" for to, — and yet 
putting it after all ! 

2. " The Holy place" = ayia : no " the," no "place," — 
literally, " is called (not "is reckoned") holy." And so 
below "Holy of holies," no "the." 

4. " Having" for "which had." (?) 

11. "Having come" for "being come" = 7t a payer opts- 
voS. How could this be required by faithfulness ? " Being 
come '' may be archaic, but is it unintelligible ? The Revi- 



176 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION 

sers retain and multiply archaisms ("howbeit," etc.). 
They even retain the be for have in unnumbered cases as the 
auxiliary of come, go, etc. ; and so, if that is unintelligible 
they are unfaithful, and if it is intelligible they are incon- 
sistent (" straightway," etc.). 

15. "A death" for " death." His death is evidently im- 
plied in the connection. Cf. verse 1. 

16. " The death," subject of cptpe&Oai, — no article. And 
" death," not "a death," at verse 17. AiadrjKt} is translated 
"covenant" from viii. 6, to this verse ; and here, where evi- 
dently the same thing is meant, it is translated " testament ;" 
and, again, thenceforward it is rendered "covenant." In 
the A. V. it is "testament" from verse 15 through the chap- 
ter. 

17. " Where there hath been death," {niarg. u over the 
dead,") for " after men are dead"= ini YEupoiS. Certainly 
the word is "dead" and not " death." 

X. 

I. "Them that draw nigh" for " the comers thereunto" 
= rovZ 7tpo6£pxo)j,avovS. The Revisers have rendered this 
verb, with the A. V., 68 times by " come," " come to," " come 
unto," and at Matt, xxvii. 58 ; Luke xxiii. 52 ; Acts ix. 1 ; 
xxii. 26, by ''went to." They agree with the A. V. in the 
Gospels throughout, except at Luke vii. 14, where they say 
" came nigh." They agree with the A. V. in rendering it 
" draw near" at Acts vii. 31 ; Heb. x. 22 ; " go near" at Acts 
viii. 29 ; and " consent" at 1 Tim. vi. 3. They put "draw 
near" for "come to" at Heb. iv. 16 and vii. 25, and here at 
x. 1, they say "draw nigh" (for a little variety? — see 
"straightway"). At Heb. xi. 6, where they (with the A. V.) 
translate it by " come," it is coming to God; and so, at xii. 
18, 22, " coming to a mount," " to Mount Zion ;" and at 1 
Pet. ii. 4, "coming to the Lord." 

8, 11. " The which" for " which" = airives. Cf. viii. 5 ; 
xiii. 7 ; 2 Thess. i. 9. 

10. " Which" for "the which" = g3. Oh ! how faithful ! 

II. "Day by day" for "daily." (?) 

13. " Footstool of his feet" — once more. 



HEBREWS. 177 

16. * '■' Then saith he " is an entirely unnecessary insertion. 
We need only pat the semicolon after " make with them ;" 
and a comma after " saith the Lord," and the whole becomes 
consecutive and clear. See the punctuation of the A. V. 
in the original prophecy at Jeremiah xxxi. 33. 

19. "Holy place" for " Holiest" = tgov ayioDv. Also 
ix. 8. (?). 

20. If "way" is repeated, the last ought to be in italics. 
Note their servile construction. Cf. 2 Pet. iii. 1. 

23. "That it waver not" for "without wavering" = 
ankivr}. Is all that verbal construction in an adjective? 

25. Day "drawing nigh" for " approaching" = eyyi- 
8,ov6av. Required by faithfulness ! 

28. "A man that hath set at naught" for "he that de- 
spised" = aOsrr/GaS TiS. This is a remarkable case, where 
the Revisers put a perfect for the preterite of the A. V. in 
rendering an aorist. And it is further remarkable that just 
here they are wrong, and the A. V. is probably right ; that 
is to say, the tense should be either preterite or pluperfect, 
— in no event perfect ; — " one (or he) that set (or had set) at 
nought," or "treated (or had treated) with contempt, . . . 
died without mercy," etc. 

29. "Judged" for " thought" worthy = a^iajOrffferai. (?) 

30. "Said" for "hath said," aorist. (?) 

32. " After ye were enlightened" for "after ye were il- 
luminated" = cpG0Ti(?6evTes. Here they retain " after," but 
cf. verses 12 and 36, etc. 

37. " He that cometh shall come" for " he that shall come 
will come" = epxojj.evo$ r/^ei. Cf. Luke, xviii. 30, "He 
that is to come." 

$8. The text in the first clause is changed, by adding jjlov 
after dixawZ, (righteous one). The " and" which begins the 
second clause does not belong to the quotation, not being 
in the prophet; see Septuagint ; and cf. Luke iv. 11, and 
above at i. 10, " and, Thou Lord." — The same mode of print- 
ing should have been adopted here. The " and" connects 
two separate quotations ; and it is remarkable that, in the 
prophet, that which is here the second comes first ; so that 
the "he" (or the subject of "shrink back") cannot there 



178 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

refer to " tht righteous one," who is not mentioned till 
afterward. The Revisers have treated the passage as a cita- 
tion, — and rightly ; for, if the apostle had constructed his 
sentence without reference to the prophet, he would natural- 
ly have connected the two clauses with 6e and not with 
nod, — with " but" (as the A. V.) and not with "and." As 
to the insertion of "any man" by the A. V., see John viii. 
44 marg. ; 2 Cor. viii. 12 and 1 Pet. iv. 16, etc 

XI. 

I. The margin or the A. V. is to be preferred for vrtoG- 
raGiS, "substance;" the text or A. V. for eXeyxos, "evi- 
dence" or "proving." 

5. "Translated" for "had translated," after di or 1 : but 
cf. Phil. ii. 26 and 1 Thess. ii. 8. 

6. " Is a rewarder," — not "becomes" = yirerai. 

9. " Became a sojourner ... in a land not his own" for 
"sojourned ... in a strange country" = 7tapoo7trj<j8v si$ 
yrjv . . . aXXorpiav. But see their own translation at 
Acts vii. 6, " that his seed should sojourn in a strange land" 
== on iarai to 67tkp}ia avrov Ttapoinov iv yrj aX- 
Xorpia. Above they put " became a sojourner" for one 
aorist verb, 7tapGD7irjo'ev = " sojourned," and in Acts they 
put "sojourn" alone for I'orai napoiKOv, which might 
fairly be rendered "should be (or become) sojourners," — 
plural, for they immediately say "them" for "seed." And 
as to their stra?ige rendering of aXXorpiav here, cf. also 
Matt. xvii. 25 and John x. 5 (" strangers") ; Luke xvi. 12 ; 
Rom. xiv. 4; xv. 20; 2 Cor. x. 15, 16 ; 1 Tim. v. 22, ("an- 
other's," "another man's," "other men's") ; and verse 34 
("aliens"). 

II. " Even Sarah herself" for " also Sarah herself." (Cf. 
"also" for "even," verse 12.) Who should have received 
the power rather than Sarah herself ? Say rather " by faith, 
also, Sarah herself ( = nlffrei nai avri) JEappa) received 
power to conceive seed, even when she was past age" (uai 
7tapa naipov yXiniai). This "even" (uai) they omit en- 
tirely. Extraordinary faithfulness ! The logic of the case 
must prevail over the order of the first nai. 



HEBREWS. • 179 

12. "Wherefore" for " therefore" = 616 : see vi. 1 and 
cf. 2 Cor. iv. 13. " Also . . . of one"' for " even of one," 
cf . verse 1 1 . Literally, ' ' wherefore even of one sprang there 
— and him already dead (as it were) — so many," etc. Their 
" also" is, by their own apparent rule, connected solely with 
" wherefore," implying an added " wherefore," or an added 
inference, and implying moreover, according to their appar- 
ent Greek rule, that the nod stood before the dio. 

16. " Hath prepared"— an aorist. 

17. In the text, a perfect is designedly and deliberately 
rendered in the preterite, — see margin; — "offered up " = 
7tpo6£vr)VOX£v : and then an imperfect is carefully rendered 
" was offering up." Literally, "and his only begotten 
was he offering up who had (gladly) received the promises, 
to whom it was (or had been) said," etc. And thus their 
crabbed and intercalated construction might be quite 
avoided. They say "that had received" = 6 avads^a^s- 
vos, not, "that received" ; but cf. Matt. xxv. -18, 20, 22. 
For 7tpo? or the A. V. "of whom" (or "in reference to 
whom") is better. Their margin, which is the same as the 
A. V., would require the "he" of their text to be changed 
to "him" before the "of" of their margin. 

19. The A. V. is better, with "him" inserted. What 
immediately follows implies it. " Parable" here is not 
English. 

21. " When he was a dying" retained = a7roB'vr/(TKGDr. 

22. " When his end was nigh" = reXevTcov, 

28. "Kept" = 7tS7toi??KS, — perfect. "That not" for 
1 "lest." Wanton faithfulness. Cf. John xii. . 40 ; 1 Tim. 
• iii. 7 ; Rev. xvi. 15 ; Matt. xvii. 27 ; xxvi. 5, etc. "The de- 
stroyer of for " he that destroyed" = 6 oXoOpevajv. Cf. 
xiii. 7 ; Rev. iv. 9, 10. 

30. "After they had been compassed about" for "after 
they were," etc.= KvuXajdevra = " having been compassed 
about," cf. next verse. 

32. What shall I more say ? = ri iri Xkyoo ? - retained. 
" If I tell" = dnyyovjuevov : see vi. 6. 

35. "Their deliverance;" marg. " Gr. the redemption." 
Say " the proffered deliverance," — if we must have " the." 



180 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

40. ''Through their faith" for "through faith" = Sia 
r?)Z 7ti(jT8GoS. But 1) TtianS they freely render simply 
" faith," see James ii. 17, 22 ; Rom. iii. 25, 30, 31 ; Gal. iii. 
23, etc. 

XII. 

4, 5. " Have resisted" = avriKartarr]T8 ; " have forgot- 
ten" = £K\e\??(jde, — aorist and perfect co-ordinated. See 
also Acts xxv. 10; Phil. iii. 12; iv. 11 ; Mark v. 19, etcr 
Cf. John xvii. 

9. " Had" for " have had" =£ixoja€v } — "used to have." 
" Have had" is as good an expression for it as we can com- 
mand in English. 

11. " Peaceable fruit . . . even the fruit of righteous- 
ness" for "the peaceable fruit of righteousness." Another 
wrestling with the article. See also ix. 1 ; xiii. 20, and Gal. 
ii. 16, 20. Cf. 2 Tim. iii. 15, ad fin. 

13. "That not" for ' i lest" = i'vtx jjlt[>. But cf. John xii. 
40; 1 Tim. iii. 7; Rev. xvi. 15 ; Matt. xvii. 27; xxvi. 5, 
etc. 

17. "Desired" for "would have" = OeXgov, — "sought 
to." (?) It is remarkable that in Spanish they use querer 
(from the Latin quaere re), for the French vouloir, the Ger- 
man wollen, the Latin volo, and the Greek 6e\gd. All these 
correspond more nearly to our will than to our wish or 
desire. 

22, 23. From the Revisers' suggestion of " a Son of God" 
at Matt. xxv. 54, and from the rendering " the Son of God" 
at John x. 36; " sons of God" at Rom. viii. 14 ; "children 
of God" at John i. 12 and John iii. 3; " sons of thunder," 
Mark iii. 17 ; "son of exhortation," Acts iv. 36 ; "an un- 
known God," Acts xvii. 23; "a root of all kinds of evil," 
1 Tim. vi. 10, etc., etc., — it would have seemed only con- 
sistent if, in this passage, they had translated: "But ye 
are come to a mount Zion, and unto a city of a living God, 
a heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of angels, 
to a general assembly and church of men firstborn enrolled 
in heaven, and to God a judge of all, and to spirits of just 
men made perfect, and to Jesus a mediator of a new cov- 



HEBREWS. 151 

enant, and to a blood of sprinkling," etc. At all events, if 
it is to be, as they translate, " innumerable hosts of angels," 
then it should also be " a general assembly and church of 
men firstborn enrolled in heaven" ( — not "who are"); 
and if it is to be "of a new covenant," then it should also 
be "of a living God." Moreover, "who are enrolled" 
and " made perfect" they put for perfect participles in the 
Greek, — not " who have been" and " having been;" but cf. 
Matt. v. 10, etc. 

28. " Offer service well-pleasing" for " serve acceptably" 
= XarpsvGDju8v evapecxrcos. Cf. Rom. xii. 1,2 — " accept- 
able ;" also Matt. iv. 10; Luke i. 74; iv. 8; Acts vii. 7; 
xxvi. 7 j xxvii. 23, etc. — "serve." 



XIII. 



1. " Love of the brethren" for " brotherly love" = cpika- 
deXcpia. (?) 

7. "Them that had the rule over you, which spake" for 
''them which have the rule over you, who have spoken"= 
tgdv rjyovpdvGDV vpidoVy oi'Tives iXaXrjaav. The present 
participle they here render as a past, and oirives by 
"which" and not "the which;" — the change of "who" to 
"which" seems to have contented them. The tfyovjj.svGDv 
might be rendered "rulers," without regard to time (see 
vii. 6) ; but i\a\rj6av should rather be rendered, with 
A. V., as a perfect. The " rulers" spoken of were probably 
still living and in office; see verse 17. The verb jj,vr/pio- 
revGD means simply "think of," "bear in mind." 

15. " Then" for "therefore." (?) "A sacrifice" for "the 
sacrifice," and then "the fruit," — why? No article in 
Greek, but see xii. 22, 23. 

18. " Desiring" for "willing" = " seeking." (?) 

20, 21. "The great shepherd . . . even our Lord 
Jesus" for "our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd." What 
need of Grecizing? Is the sense affected? "The" for 
"that" is well enough, though trifling; cf. iv. 3; James ii. 
14, etc., etc. 



1 82 VOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

JAMES. 

I. 

9. " In his high estate" for " in that he is exalted" = iv 
r<p vipei avrov; and then " in that he is made low" = iv rrj 
Ta7teivGD(7ei avrov. Cf. Luke i. 48, where they render this 
very ranEivooGi^ " low estate." " Straightway" ! 

11. "Ariseth," " withereth," " falleth," " perisheth," 
are all for Greek aorists. 

12. " Promised" for " hath promised," — aorist. (?) 

15. "Then the lust, when it" for " then when lust . . . 
it." (?) " The lust," "the sin," for" lust/' " sin,"— article 
generic; — "mint, anise, cummin." 

17. " Boon" for " gift. " There is no need of using two 
English words, unless we have lit words to use. The two 
Greek words are of the same etymology. " Shadow that 
is cast by turning" for "shadow of turning" =Tp07tr/S 
a7to6nia6jia. How does turning cast a shadow? The 
A. V. is literal and correct. If we must have it explained 
in the translation, we might say, " shadow whose direction 
is changed by turning," or, better, "shadow that turneth;" 
cf. verse 25, "a hearer that forgetteth = anpoarr)Z 
£7nX?^(TjJ.ov?)£. 

18. "Of his own will" = fiovXrfOeis,— notice "will," 
not wish or desire. 

20. " The wrath," " the righteousness," — no article in the 
Greek. Why did they not say, " man's wrath worketh not 
God's righteousness" ? Cf. 2 Tim. ii. 24, "the Lord's ser- 
vant" faithfully substituted for " the servant of the Lord," 
— thus making believe to get rid of the article. (?) 

25. " The perfect law, the law of liberty" for "the per- 
fect law of liberty" = vojxov rov rrjs sXsvdeplaZ. And 
why not "a perfect law, the law," etc.? Cf. Gal. ii. 20; 
Heb. ix. 1; xii. n; 1 Pet. i. 19.— " Being" = yevojuevoS, 
— not "becoming;" " that forgetteth" for "forgetful," — 
who is " forgetful" but he " that forgetteth" ? = rrj? ijrilijff- 
jiovys : "that worketh" for "of the work," = {jtonpr]^) 



JAMES. 183 

8pyov=" a doer of work," or "the doer of the work-" 
cf. verse 20, etc. 

27. " Himself " = one's self. Cf. 1 Thess. iv. 9. 



II. 

1. "Hold" for" have" = s'xsts. ■ Cf. Mark xi. 22; 
Matt. xvii. 20; xxi. 21, etc., — "have faith." 

4. "Are ye not divided . . . and become," — aorists ren- 
dered as presents or perfects. " With" for " of ;" — " of" 
is exact but ambiguous ; = xpiral SiaXoyiffjJodv norrfpoov 
= " judges who are led by, or who think, evil thoughts." 
For the construction, cf. i. 25. 

5. "Did . . . choose" for " hath chosen ;" "promised" 
for "hath promised," — aorists. (?) 

6. "Have dishonored" for "have despised" = rjrifid- 
(jccts : — aorist ; but is not " dishonored" rather too strong — 
too positive — here? Cf. "disbelief." 

8. " Howbeit if" for " if " = ei fxevroi. The pet " how- 
beit" again ! It seems to stand ready for any Greek particle 
somewhat obscure or idiomatic. Why not say here, "if 
now," or "if then," or rather, " if indeed" ? See the fol- 
lowing si de in the apodosis. 

12. " Men that are to be judged by a law of liberty" for 
M they that shall be judged by the law of liberty." What 
is the advantage of " men that are to be" over "they that 
shall be" ? And as to "a law" for "the law," cf. i. 20; 
Heb. ix! 15 ; xii. 5, 22, 23, etc. 

13. " Hath shewed" — an aorist. 

14. " That faith" for " faith" = tf niarn .• but cf. verse 17. 
18. " In itself " for " being alone" = uad eavrr/v. Say 

"by itself;" the A. V. is not far wrong. 

21. "In that" for "when" (he offered) = avEvtyxaS, — 
"having offered ;" so verse 25. 

22. " By works" = ex roov spy gov .- " faith" = r) niGTiS 
How happened they to forget the articles? Surely it is: 
"by the works was the faith made perfect," i.e., "by his 
works was his faith," etc. 



1 84 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 



III. 



i. " Be not" =/**/ yivseOs — not " become." " Heavier 
judgement" for "the greater condemnation." Does not 
j.iBiB,ov itself show that xprjiot really means condemnation ? 
With "judgement" they are compelled to assumo a change 
in its proper meaning. 

2. " The whole body also" = noci oXov to ffdopia. Why 
didn't they say : " even the whole body" ? See Luke vii. 49. 

6. " The world of iniquity among our members is the 
tongue" = 6 x6o~/jo$ xrf< aSiniaS 7) yXdbo'O'a naQlararai 
ev rolS f.dXeo'iy t/jagdv = " the world of iniquity doth the 
tongue make itself among our members." They render 
to oXov and oXov ro alike, " the whole." See verses 2 and 
3, cf. Matt. xxii. 37; Luke x 27. 

10. "Cometh forth" for " proceedeth" = e^ipx^rai. 
But the Revisers very often render this verb by "go" in- 
stead of "come" forth; in St. Matthew, for example, the 
instances are two to one. See Matt. ix. 26, 31, 32, etc. 

14. "Faction" (in your heart), for " strife" = epiOeiav. 
Faction in the heart ? 

15. (A wisdom that) " cometh down" for " descendeth" 
= so~ri Karepxo/xtvr/. Why not "is coming down" or 
" descending" ? or " is one that cometh down or descend- 
eth." Cf. Col. iii. 10; Matt. xix. 22, also Heb. i. 1, etc. 

IV. 

4. " Maketh himself" for " is" =Ka6i6Tarai. But see 
iii. 6. Consequential? — " straightway" ! 



1. "Ye rich" for "ye rich men" = 01 7t\ov(Jioi. But 
presumably they were men ; and if so the A. V. is the bet- 
ter English. They might have said " ye who are rich," 
very literally, and idiomatically also. 

4. 'Who mowed," "reaped" for " have," etc. , equivalent 
to "the mowers," "the reapers of." But, if put in the 



/. PETER. ' 185 

verbal form, the more natural English in the connection is 
in the perfect ; — observe " which is (not, which was) kept 
back." 

5, 6. "Have lived," "have taken," " have nourished,' ' 
"have condemned," "have killed," — all aorists. So, at 
verse 11, " have. heard," " have seen." 

7. " The early and latter rain," — no article in the Greek. 

10. Inversion of order, after the Greek, but not necessary 
to faithfulness ; for the sense is the same, only the A. V. 
follows the English idiom for emphasis. Cf. 2 Pet. iii. 1. 

12. " The heaven," " the earth," for "heaven," "earth." 
(?) Cf. Matt. xxiv. 35. 

16. Having said "the supplication," where there is no 
article with a nominative case, they might have rendered 
eyspyovfxerr], "effectual" or "being effectual" (A. V.) in- 
stead of " in its working." ("A righteous man's prayer 
works with mighty effect.") 

I. PETER. 



t, 2. There is no Greek article in these verses, but the 
Revisers have inserted " the" six times : " Elect" they have 
separated from its connection with "according to," follow- 
ing the Greek construction ; but is there any doubt of the 
sense ? Here they seem to have felt the duty of being no 
clearer than the original. 

5. " A salvation" for " salvation" ? See verse 9 , where 
they say "the salvation," though there is no more article 
there than here. There, however, " salvation" is with a 
genitive; but cf. Luke xix. 9 ; 1 Thess. v. 9 ; Heb. i. 14; ii. 
3; vi. 9, etc., etc.; where they familiarly use "salvation" 
in an absolute way ; — and it is here, at most, only a ques- 
tion of punctuation. 

6. " Have been put to grief" for " are in heaviness" = 
\v7trjderT8S, — literally "were grieved," — aorist. 

7. "Proof" for "trial" = Soki/xiov = "proving"? 
" Though it is proved" for " though it be ;" — the proving is 
not affirmed, but the Revision makes it seem so. 



1 86 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

12. " Have been announced"' for " are reported" = a^rjy- 
yiXrf : two forms of the perfect, alike for an aorist. 

19. Here is another of the characteristic elaborate inver- 
sions to conform to the order of the Greek words. " With 
precious blood .... even the blood of Christ" for "with 
the precious blood of Christ." But is it really greater 
faithfulness to the original, to say "precious blood, even the 
blood," than to say " the precious blood"? If "even the 
blood" may be implied, cannot " the" be implied, and that 
too when followed by a genitive? But oh, the modern 
mysteries of the Greek article ! Even if the order of the 
Greek must be followed, we should still have, — " By the 
precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without 
spot, of Christ," i.e. (re-arranging) exactly as the A.V. stands. 

20. Here a Greek perfect and an aorist are co-drdinated, 
and both rendered in the preterite. 

23. " Having been begotten" for " being born ;" — but see 
" it is written." 

24. " Withereth," " falleth,"— aorists. 



II. 

2. " Spiritual" for " of the word" = Xoyinov. Marg. 
"reasonable." So, most of the former translations. The 
A. V. follows the Geneva version. It is remarkable that 
for the same word at Rom. xii. 1, the Revisers put "reason- 
able" in the text and " spiritual" in the margin. 

7. " Was made" for " is made" (or " has been made") = 
iysvi^Orf. (?) 

9. " For God's own possession" for " peculiar;" — but his 
own is the peculiar meaning of peculiar," from peculium. 

10. " Which had not obtained mercy, but now have ob- 
tained mercy" = 01 ovu ?jXerj/j.8roi, vvv St eXarjOevres. 
Note the tenses, and compare i. 20. 

11. " Which" = airives, — not "the which," nor "for 
they," cf. Heb. x. 8, 11. 

12. "Seemly" for "honest." Is this seemly ? Why not 
say " honorable" or " becoming ?" 

15. " By" for "with." But with or in is certainly more 



/. PETER. 187 

consonant to the participial construction than " by;" " with 
well doing" = aya6o7toiovvras. 

19. " Acceptable" for " thankworthy," marg. " Gr. grace ;" 
say rather " Gr. thanks." 

24. " Having died unto sins" for a being dead to sins" = 
anoyevofxevoi ? — two forms of the perfect, but the former 
having a preterite meaning. 

25. "Ye were going astray like sheep" for "ye were as 
sheep going astray. ' ' Gr. ' ' as sheep ye were going astray.' ' 
"Are now returned" = e7rearpa<p^re vvv. 

III. 

4. "A meek," etc. = rov Ttpaeos, etc. How happened 
their faithfulness not to say, "the meek and quiet spirit ?" 
Cf. "The sower," etc.; see v. 11, and "the weeping and 
gnashing," etc. They insert " apparel" for "ornament;" 
but the gender and number in the original require the latter. 

6. "Ye now are" for "ye are= eyevrjdrjTe. Aorist and 
no vvv : cf. ii. 7, where "was made" for " is made." 

12. " Upon" for " against." The rendering of iiti should 
of course be changed according to its connection. Does 
" upon" give the sense here in English ? 

14. "But and if," again; here for aXk si xai. See 1 
Cor. vii. 11 and 2 Cor. iv. 3. 

20. " Wherein" = sis rjv. Marg. to be preferred, i.e. 
"entering into which." 

21. " Interrogation" = eTtspGorrjpia. Marg. better, i.e. 
"the appeal of a good conscience to God." (Note, if it 
was the ark that saved the others, i.e. brought them safely 
through the water, how should it be "after a true likeness" 
that the water should now save us ? It would seem that it 
must be, not the water that saves, but baptism in its con- 
crete spiritual sense, as an act of faith and of a gpod con- 
science.) 

IV. 

1. " Suffered" = naOovroZ, by the preterite when spoken 
of Christ ; " hath suffered" = rtadoov, by the perfect, of the 



188 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

Christian. What becomes then of the faithfulness of per- 
sistently rendering anlOave, " died," when speaking of the 
Christian as well as of Christ ? 

3. "And to have walked" for "when we walked" = 
7C£7rop£voj.iivovZ = "having walked" or "while we have 
walked." Cf. the change made in verse 8, in just the con- 
trary sense. 

5. "Who;" but is not this ambiguous? Why did they 
not render, "and they" or "but they" or "for they," as 
they do sometimes elsewhere ? 

6. " Even to the dead" for " also to them that are dead" 
= noil vexpoiS : i.e. "to them also that are (now) dead ;" 
say, then, " to the dead also.'" 

10. " Hath received " == an aorist. "A gift" for "the 
gift" =x<xP l( ?M a - ( ? ) Cf. v. 1. 

11. "Any man" = rz5, — not "any one." "As it were 
oracles of God" for " as the oracles of God" = gdG \6yia 
Geou. Cf. v. 1, and prjpia ©sou at Heb. vi. 5 and xi. 3, and 
see John vi. 6& ; James v. 16, etc. See also " the manifold 
grace of God," just before, without Greek article; and 
why should go? be rendered "as" immediately before and 
after, but "as it were" here ? 

V. 

1. "The elders," — no article; in the direct accusative. 
Cf. Eph. iii. 15. 

2. "Of constraint" for " by constraint" = avayuaGTGoZ. 
Wherefore the change? Did they suppose that " by con- 
straint" might be understood for " by constraining" ? So 
may "of constraint" be understood for "of constraining" 
if one will. But the next words forbid any such interpre- 
tation. 

4. "Shall receive" = MOjutieiffOe, — not, "receive again." 
But see Matt. xxv. 27; Eph. vi. 8; Col. iii. 25; Heb. xi. 
19; where they put "receive back" or "again," for "re- 
ceive;" while at i. 9 ; 2 Cor. v. 10 ; Heb. x. 36; xi. 39, they 
render as here, simply "receive." 

5. "To serve one another" == a\Xi}\oiZ, " for" or "to- 
wards one another." They use no italics here. 



//. PETER. 189 

9. Marg. " Gr. being accomplished" = smreXeiaOai = 
"to be accomplished." Do they mean that it is, " to be 
being accomplished" ? 

12. " Have written " = eypaipa. 

II. PETER. 



1, 3. " That have obtained" = roH Xaxovffi (aorist),*and 
then (3) " that called" for " that hath called" = rov xa\i- 
Gavroi. " Virtue" = aperf/i .- — being referred to God, it 
had better be "excellency," as at 1 Pet. ii. 9. 

7. " In love of the brethren supply love" for "to brother- 
ly kindness add charity." If "love" is to be substituted 
for "charity" = ayanr/, "brotherly kindness" is surely 
better than " love of the brethren," not only for sound's 
sake, but because the Greek word (cpiXia) for the love that 
is " kindness" is different from that {ayocnrj) for the " love" 
that is "charity." The simple reader might, from the 
Revision, suppose them to be the same ; and then be puz- 
zled to know how, "in love of the brethren," "love" was 
to be "supplied." And, in general, this "supplying in" 
may be very good Greek, but after all "adding to" ex- 
presses the same sense in better English. 

12. "Are established" = sarr/piy/j-srov?, — not "have 
been established." 

14. " Signified" for " hath showed" = eStjXgqgs. But there 
is nothing expressed about the mode of showing, — no sign 
or token referred to. Cf. Rev. i. 1. 

18. "We ourselves" for " we" = r/}A.e zS" .• but cf. Tit. iii. 
3, where they correct just contrariwise. 

II. 

12. "Creatures without reason, born mere animals" for 
" natural brute beasts, made," etc. There is nothing in the 
text of " creatures, " and " mere animals" is put for "natural 
beasts" {Zcba (pvGiKa). Does the slight change of order 
in the new text necessitate all this change, and is it an im- 
provement ? If %6ba is to be rendered " living creatures," 



190 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

it does not follow that we can drop the " living" and retain 
the "creatures." "Living" is the essence of the original 
word, and " creatures" no more belongs to it, and has no 
more right to represent it, than would " things" or ''ob- 
jects," after having been inserted with " living." 

15. "Went astray, having followed" for "have gone 
astray, following." (Aorists.) But did they "follow" be- 
fore "forsaking the right way," and before they "went 
astray" ? And why did the Revisers not say " a right way" 
as well as " a root of evil" ? They have no article in their 
text, and it is a direct accusative, without a genitive. 

16. "A dumb ass spake with man's voice and stayed "for 
"the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad" = V7to~ 
Zvyiov aqxjovov, ev av^poonov (poovij (pBeygajievov, 
£KGo\v(?e. For the article, compare " the dog" and "the' 
sow," at verse 22; and for the construction of the partici- 
ple, as well as for the article, compare " forsaking the right 
way" at verse 15. 

17. " Hath been reserved" for " is reserved ;" but see " it 
is written ;" and see next below. 

19. " Is overcome," "is brought," — perfects. 

20,21. "After they have escaped," — aorist participle. 
" After knowing" for " after they have known," — also an 
aorist participle. 

22. Why not translate faithfully, and say: *' a dog when 
he turned upon his own vomit again, and a sow when she 
washed herself to wallowing in mire" ? 

III. 

1. "This is now, beloved, the second epistle that I write 
unto you ; and in both of them," etc., for " This second 
epistle, beloved, I now write unto you, in both which," etc. 
The A. V. is here an exact literal translation of the Greek, 
unless the position of the " now" should be called in ques- 
tion ; and is it not intelligible, if the R. V. is ? What then 
of "faithfulness" ? In the original, "epistle" is in the ac- 
cusative case after "write," and there is neither " is" nor 
" that ;" and the whole phrase of the R. V., "and in both 
of them," is, in the Greek, simply iv ah, as in A. V., "in 



//. PETER. 191 

both which. " It may be said the literal translation is harsh 
and the R. V. is smoother ; but this the Revisers can scarcely 
urge without abundant self-contradiction. Cf. Mark v. 15 ; 
Actsxxvi. 24; Rom. i. 3, 4 ; viii. 28, 38, 39 ; Gal. ii. 9; Eph. 
v. 12, 20; Heb. x. 20 ; Ja. v. 10, etc. 

2. " Should" for " may." Why ? 

3. " That in the last days mockers shall come" for "that 
there shall come in the last days scoffers" = on iXevaovrai 
in eGx^TGor tgov rj}j.epGQV ijxnainrai. The A. V. follows 
the exact order and sense of the original. The " with 
mockery" of the new reading could be added perfectly well 
after " scoffers" or "mockers." Do the Revisers pretend 
to set English euphony against the order and form of the 
Greek text? 

5. "That there were heavens from of old, and an earth 
compacted out of water and amidst water, by the word of 
God ; by which means," etc. Transposing the phrase " by 
the word of God," a very literal translation of the Greek 
would stand thus : " That, by the word of God, heaven was 
from of old, and earth of water and in water consisting ; 
by means of which," etc. One would understand from the 
Revision — and perhaps it was intended to be so understood 
— that the " compacting" (<?vve(TTGD(Ta== " consisting"), and 
not " heaven and earth," was " by the word of God ;" and 
"by which means" (Si gov) might in English be also re- 
ferred to " the word of God," instead of the conditions of 
the earth as related to water. 

9. ' ' Not wishing' ' for "not willing"= jut} fiovXojuevoS. (?) 
Cf. 3 John 13. " Not designing," or "not intending," or 
' * not being pleased. ' ' " Wishing' ' seems too idle a thing to 
predicate of God. 

14. " In his sight" for " of him," = avrop. 

16. "All his epistles" = nocGaiS €7rz(?To\aiZ. Cf. Rev. 
iii. 2. " Ignorant" for " unlearned" = ajdaSeiS, " Igno- 
rant" is elsewhere always a translation from ayvokoo. 

17. " Lest" = iv a jatj. See Heb. xii. 13, note. 



192 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

I. JOHN. 

I. 

1. " Beheld" for "have looked upon" (cf. John iv. 35). 
It is not likely that the apostle means to make a distinction 
between the time of the " seeing" and of the "beholding," 
although he says ioopaua^ev and e6eaaajj.eda : — both 
forms being so used in Greek as to be properly expressed 
by our perfect, while our preterite and perfect are not thus 
interchangeable. For some of the cases in which the Re- 
visers have rendered the Greek aorist and perfect co-ordi- 
nated as perfects, cf. Acts xxv. 10, 11; xxi. 21-24; John 
xiii. 14, 15 ; Matt. xxvi. 12, 13 (an aorist as a preterite and 
then a perfect); Phil. iii. 12; iv. 11, 12; Rev. xviii. 2, 3; 
and especially Acts xxii. 15. The repetition of "that which" 
is unnecessary and not literal. " What" might have been 
literal, and, so, repeated. 

2. " The life, the eternal life" for "that eternal life" = 
rrjv S,Gor/v rrjv azaoviov. But see the " daily bread" of the 
Lord's Prayer, etc. As for the construction and the em- 
phatic " that" of the A. V., cf. Eph. i. 13, 19; James ii. 14, 
etc. 

II. 

5. "Hath been perfected" for "is perfected" = rersXei- 
corai. Cf. TETtXsGTai, John xix. 30, and see below, iv. 
12, 17, and v. 1 ; where we have rereXeiGopLevrf effriv ren- 
dered " is perfected," and this very rersXsiGJTai rendered 
" is made perfect," and ye-yewr/Tai rendered " is be- 
gotten." 

7. " No new commandment write I" for " I write no new 
commandment." But cf. 2. Thess. iii. 2, where the order 
of the Greek is (what there, too, logic requires) " not all 
have faith." Here one order is as logical and as intelligible 
as the other, with precisely the same sense. If emphasis is 
appealed to, it will apply in Thess. as well as here. 

8. " Write I" for " I write." Oh, exquisite faithfulness! 
11. " Hath blinded," — an aorist. 



/. JOHN. 193 

13, 14. " Have written" (tris) — an aorist. 

15. " Any man" = rz;, — not their usual " any one." 

18. " Heard" for " have heard/' (?) 

19. The marg., "That not all are of us," is singularly 
aro7tor y as being contrary to the order of the Greek and 
inconsistent with the manifest sense and logic of the pas- 
sage. Cf. 2 Thess. iii. 2, also 1 Cor. vi. 12. 

24. " Heard from the beginning" for " have heard," etc. 

26. " Have I written," — an aorist. " Would lead astray" 
for " seduce" = 7t\av gov tody. There is nothing for 
■ ■ would ; ' ' — faithfulness. 

27. " Received," " taught," for "have," etc. (?) 

28. "At his coming" = iv rrj napovaia. Cf. Phil. ii. 10, 
ev tg3 ovojxari ItjGov. 

III. 

1. "For this cause" for " therefore" = did tovto, and 
then "because" (euphony?). They themselves render did 
rouro by " therefore" at iv. 5 ; Matt. vi. 25 ; xii. 27 ; xiii. 
13,52; xiv. 2 ; xviii. 23 ; xxi. 43 ; xxiv. 44 ; Mark vi. 14 ; xi. 
24 ; Luke xi. 19, 49 ; xii. 22 ; xiv. 20; John ix. 23 ; xiii. 11 ; 
xv. 19; xvi. 15; xix. 11 ; Acts ii. 26; 2 Cor. iv. 1 ; vii. 13; 
2 Tim. ii. 10 ; Philemon 15 ; Heb. i. 9; ii. 1 ; Rev. vii. 15; 
xii. 12 ; xviii. 8; and at John x. 17, where it is followed by 
"because," just as it is here. They have put " for this 
cause" instead of " therefore" at Mark xii. 24 ; John i. 31 ; 
v. 16, 18 ; vi. 65 ; vii. 22 ; viii. 47 ; xii. 39 ; Rom. iv. 16 ; 2 
Cor. xiii. 10; 1 Thess. iii. 7, and here. Under these circum- 
stances of course Greek scholarship can decide nothing. 
Let every intelligent reader, noting the context in each 
case, say whether it was not possible to avoid making these 
changes consistently with faithfulness. To my own appre- 
hension they are not even improvements in any sense or 
degree ; but, in the case before us, for example, the change 
seems to me decidedly and entirely for the worse. At all 
events, think of "straightway," and remember that Sid 
ravrrjv airiav is the proper Greek for "for this cause;" 
see Acts xxviii. 20, etc. 



194 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

3. " Every one" for " every man." Cf. ii. 15. 

4. " Every one that " for " whosoever" = neks 6. This is 
a frequent correction of the faithfulness of the Revisers. 
But see the 6th, 9th, 10th, and 15th verses of this very 
chapter, where we have " whosoever" for 71 as 6 five times 
over. 

8. " To this end"' for " for this purpose" = ezV rovro. To 
what purpose the change ? 

9. " Is begotten" (bis) for the perfect. Cf. ii. 5. 

16. "Hereby know we love," — rrfv ayanr/v = " his 
love"? "He" immediately follows without antecedent. 
But cf. Rom. v. 9, " The wrath of God" = rfj? opyr/S. 

17. " Beholdeth" is dragged in again for BeGjprj : but 
with it they have " shutteth up" for xXelffrj. How happened 
they to overlook that this last is an aorist and requires 
"shall shut up"? 

24. " Gave" for "hath given." (?) 

IV. 

6. "Who for "that;" why? " Heareth us not" for 
" heareth not us;" why ? Faithfulness ! In " heareth us," 
here, the "us" is not enclitic, but has an accent or empha- 
sis ; and therefore in the contrasted phrase " heareth not 
us," propriety of utterance requires "us" to come last. 



4. "That hath overcome" for "that overcometh" = 
r) vinrjGaGa, literally, "that overcame." See verse 6, "that 
came" = iXBojv : and verse iS, o yevvrjSefc = " that was 
begotten ;" and this last is expressly contradistinguished 
from a perfect participle, o yeyevv??jU£vo$, which is ren- 
dered "is begotten." Why not then, here, say, "that 
overcometh," if it is once assumed that 1) vinrfGaGa maybe 
rendered as if it were a perfect or present ? And see Matt. 
iii. 17, "in whom I am well pleased." 

9. *" For the witness of God is this, that he hath borne 
witness," etc., for " For this is the witness of God, which 



//. JOHN.— III. JOHN. 195 

he hath testified," etc. Their Greek will permit the render- 
ing, " For this is the witness of God (for he hath borne wit- 
ness," etc.) See verse 11 for the content of the testimony ; 
and see 2 John 6 for the construction of " this." 

16. " Not concerning this do I say that he should make 
request" for " I do not say that he should pray for it" = 
ov Ttepl €K€ivr/? Xiyao i'va £pGorr}ar\. Cf. 2 Thess. iii. 2, etc. 

19. " Lieth in the evil one" for " lieth in wickedness"= 
iv rep rtovrjpcp. (? ?) Grant the sense ; is this English ? 

II. JOHN. 

4. "I rejoice" for "I rejoiced" = excxprjv : with "have 
found" for " found," perfect. Cf. 3 John 3. " Command- 
ment" for " a commandment" = ivt oXr/v. But what's the 
difference ? And if there is any, how did the Greek deter- 
mine for them which to prefer ? As for the rendering of 
the perfect by "found" in the A. V., cf. Gal. iii. 17 ; Heb. 
xi. 17, 28; 2 Cor. ii. 13 ; John vi. 25; Matt. xiii. 46; 1 Pet. 
i. 20; Mark xv. 47 (plup. ?). 

7. " Are gone forth" — an aorist. "Even they that con- 
fess not" for "who confess not" = 01 jjirf ojxoKoyovvrsi, 
Cf. Rom. ix. 5 ; John xix. 39, etc., etc. 



III. JOHN. 

5. "A faithful work in" for " faithfully" = niGrov. 
There is no word for "work." " Doest" = noieiS and 
\£pyaGr} alike. Render, "thou doest faithfully whatever 
thou workest" ? 

7. "The name" for "his name" = rov ovojuatoZ. (?) 
" His name" in St. John's language means Christ's name, 
and that is what is meant here. 

13. "Am unwilling"- for "will not" = ov $£\gq. Cf. 2 
Peter iii. 9, where they say of the Lord " not wishing." 



196 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION 

JUDE. 

I. They say "Jude" in the title and then "Judas" in the 
text. Is the epistle ascribed to the wrong person ? " For 
Jesus Christ" for " in Jesus Christ." The iv naturally and 
probably goes over from iv Qecp narpi : or else " Jesus 
Christ" may be in the instrumental dative. How happened 
they thus to transpose " called" from its proper position in 
the text ? 

3. "I was constrained" for " it was needful for me" = 
avayKrjv iffxov. The " diligence" is consistent with 
"need," but is it with "constraint"? 

4. " Even they who" for " who" =01. But cf. verse 6, 
John xix. 39; Rom. ix. 5, etc. "Were set forth" for 
" were ordained" = 01 npoy&ypajjijjievoi. Where does " set 
forth" come from ? And why did they not say " have been 
set forth" ? This is a perfect participle, and belongs to the 
subject of another (English) perfect, — not a preterite. Cf. 
Rev. v. 12. 

5. "A people" for "the people" = Xaov, i.e. Xaov 
'lffpar/\. The Israelites are plainly referred to ; and " the 
people" is the more natural English. 

10. "Whatsoever things" for "those things which" = 
06a — "as many things as." Immediately after, they (with 
the A. V.) render 00 'a by " what." If "whatsoever" dif- 
fers from "what" or " those which," one or the other of 
their renderings is wrong, and their change from the A. V. 
is without reason, or worse. " Creatures without reason" 
for "brute beasts" = aXoya Zdba. But Zoba does not 
mean mere "creatures,? but "animals" or "beasts," or, at 
most, " living creatures ;" and the " living" is essential. 

II. "Woe unto them;" — better, "alas for them." 
" Went" for " have gone," and so on ; but these aorists are 
required, by their relation to presents, to be rendered as 
perfects. 

13. "Hath been reserved" for "is reserved;" but see "it 
is written." 

15. "Have wrought," "have spoken," — aorists. 

24. "To, set without blemish" for " to present faultless" 



REVELATION. 197 

= arrfaai cxjjgjjxovs. (?) " Without stumbling" for " from 
falling" = anraifftovi. See also " stumble," James iii. 2 ; 
but compare anavdakiB,oo and " straightway." 



REVELATION. 

I. 

1. "Signified" — effrf/xaivsv .- right, but cf. 2 Peter i. 14. 

4. "Which is to come" =0 epxopisvos : right, but cf. 
Matt. xi. 3 ; Heb. x. 37, etc. 

5, 6. " Loosed" and " made" for "hath," etc. (?) 
9, 10. "I was" = eyevo/tr/v. 

13. "A son of man" for "the Son of man" = via* 
av$pGD7tov. But see " the voice of many waters" at verse 
15 ; and see ii. 18 : — He was " the Son of God." 

15. " As if it had been refined" for "as if they burned" 
= 7t£7tvpGDfA.evrji for 7C87tvpGO}A,8voi. What is the syntax of 
this reading? What is the " it" which " had been refined" ? 
" Brass" ? But x a ^ K0 ^ l fi(xvcp is of the neuter gender. The 
Vatican ms. and Tischendorf (3d) read as A. V. " As the 
voice of many waters" = gJs cpoovr} y etc. Why not "a 
voice"? Cf. verse 13, and vi. 1. 

II. 

2-9. Here are six aorists co-ordinatea with two perfects, 
all of which should be rendered as perfects. Cf. Acts xxi. 
21-24; Phil. iii. 12; iv. 11, 12; John xiii. 14, 15; Matt, 
xxvi. 12, 13; Rev. xxviii. 2, 3 ; Acts xxv. 10, 11 ; Mark v. 
19 ; Heb. xii. 45. 

9. " A synagogue" for " the synagogue," — predicate. 

12. " The sharp two-edged sword" for " the sharp sword 
with two edges" = rrjv po/tcpcxiav rrjv 6iffro/,iov rrjv 
o^siav. How important the difference! How impossible 
consistently with faithfulness to avoid the change ! And 
how could they consistently with faithfulness fail to say : 
"the sharp, the two-edged sword," or rather, "the sword, 
even the two-edged, the sharp one" ? Let us, by all means, 
have the full force of the Greek ; did they not see all those 



198 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

articles ? Surely they are not so repeated for nothing ; and 
cf. the next verse. 

13. "My witness, my faithful one" for " my faithful 
martyr" = 6 juaprvs piov 6 niffro? }xov. Cf. the " daily 
bread" of the Lord's Prayer. And as for the term "mar- 
tyr," this was plainly a "martyr" in the full modern sense, 
i.e., one who died in attestation of the truth. 

23. "Each one of you" for " every one of you." The 
Revisers often render euaGros by " every," and if it may 
be so rendered anywhere, why not here ? 

III. 

2. "Be thou watchful" for "be watchful" = yivov 
ypr/yopc^v. "Works of thine" for "thy works" == Gov 
spy a. Very nice; but cf. 2 Cor. vi. 16; Eph. ii. 10; Rom. 
ix. 7 ; 2 Pet. iiL 16. 

3. A co-ordinated perfect and aorist here distinguished. 
See ii. 2-9, note. 

4. Did not defile" for "have not defiled." (?) 

5. "In no wise" for " not" = ov jxrf. But at verse 3 
they had just rendered these particles by the simple " not." 

8. "A door opened" for "an open door" =2'vpav ave- 
wyp.ivr(v. How necessary to faithfulness! "That" for 
"for"— on. This may be well here ; cf. verses 2 and 4. 
Here are two aorists, and another at verse 10, which should 
have been rendered perfects instead of preterites, as appears 
from their connection and co-ordination with verbs in the 
present as well as in the perfect tense. 

12. " I will write upon him" is omitted; but is the sense 
expressed clearly ? Is the omission ?iecessary to " faithful- 
ness" ? 

17. " Have gotten riches" for" am increased in goods" = 

7T€7C\oVT7}Ha. (?) 

19. The emphatic iyoo is not so rendered; cf. 2 Pet. 
i. 18. 

IV. 

2. "There was a throne set" for " a throne was set" = 
J9-poVo5 i'ueiTo. Say : "a throne was set, and there was one 



REVELATION. 199 

sitting upon the throne." " There was" does not belong 
where they have put it. It implies k£ijj.£voS (for eHSiro), 
like the following na^-q^LEvoi. Cf. Matt. ii. 18. 

3. "To look upon" for " in sight" = opaffsi. Faithful? 

4. "Thrones" for "seats;" literal consequential faithful- 
ness. But is it not rather "seats" always, if vsemust always 
have one word ? We have two English words for the one 
Greek word ; but, while every " throne" in English is a 
"seat," not every "seat" is a "throne." 

7. " Creature" = 3,gdov : again, without " living." How 
is the English reader to know that these " creatures" in the 
7th verse are living, as well as those in the 6th and the 8th ? 
And see " straightway;" also Acts xxvi. 24, 25 ; 1 Cor. xv. 
27, 28. 

V. 

3. " In the heaven" for " in heaven" =ev too ovpavcd : 
but cf. iv. 1, where they say " in heaven" for the same iv 
tgo ovpavcp. 

6. " As though it had been slain" for " as it had been slain." 
But cf. viii. 8 ; Acts vi. 15 ; ix. 18 ; andx. 11, where they in- 
troduce no " though." 

7. "Came and taketh" for "came and took," — marg # 
"hath taken" = rf\$s xai €iA.r/cpe. What contortions! 
Manifestly these two tenses are here co-ordinated, and are 
bo*th to be rendered as perfect, or both as preterite. 

n. "Ten thousand times ten thousand" is equal only to 
jxvpiai juvpiaSoDv. Mvpiaues juvpiadoov should be ren- 
dered " ten thousands of ten thousands." "Ten thousand 
times ten thousand" is just 100,000,000; but fivpiade* 
jAvpiadoov is several times 100,000,000; and is, I believe, 
the largest expression of number found in the Bible. The 
" two myriads of myriads" of ix. 16 is the least number 
included under this plural. 

12. " Great voice" for " loud voice" = qxjovrj jueyaXr?. It 
is curious that the Revisers make everybody in the book of 
the Revelation, whether man or angel, cry with a "great" 
voice. They have changed " loud" to " great" twelve times ; 
but in one instance, at xix. 17, — by way of being " straight- 
way" consistent — they let the angel cry with a " loud" voice. 



200 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

In the other books of the New Testament, they always let 
people cry with, a "loud" voice, — an expression which, in 
those books, occurs some twenty times. The original word 
is the same throughout. One is tempted to inquire what 
there was special in the air of the Apocalypse which hinder- 
ed a "great" voice from being " loud" ? 

13. " The blessing, the honour," etc., for " blessing, hon- 
our," etc.; and so at iv. 11 ; v. 13, etc. But cf. vii. 10, 12 
and xix. 1, where they omit the articles ; and so make the 
current, as well as the good old, English. But see "the 
weeping and gnashing" at Matt. viii. 12, etc. 

VI. 

1. "As with a voice of thunder" for "as it were the noise 
of thunder" = go? cpoovr] (not <pGovr}$) ppovrrjS = " as it 
were the voice of thunder." For "as it were" see viii. 8, 
and for " the voice" (not " a voice") see i. 15. 

2. "Came forth" for " went forth" = i£r}\$8. "There 
was given" for "was given." (?) — As to ca?ne or went, the 
question is whether the movement is to be conceived as 
towards the speaker, or as across his vision, — or, perhaps, 
away from him j and whether from an objective or subjec- 
tive point of view. 

3. "Opened" for " had opened." But either may be used ; 
and so the A. V. used both. As to the Revision, cf. v. 8 and 
x. 10, for examples of the pluperfect rendering. 

4. " And another horse came forth, a red horse" for " and 
there went out another horse, that was red" = egf/XSev aXXo? 
i7t7to? 7tvpp0b. For the order, cf. the next clause and 
verse 2. Is " a horse, a red horse" better than "a horse, that 
was red" ? And if the A. V may be interpreted as mean, 
ing " another red horse," so may the R. V., after all. 

8. " With" = fV (tris). 

9. "Had been slain" for "were slain" = ecrcpayjutvaov. 
But these are merely two forms in English for the same 
tense. The A. V. is the simpler and more natural. Cf. xx. 
12, "out of the things which were written" = ex. tgov ysy- 
pa}i}J.tvGJv. And compare vii. 5-8, where iacppaywpiLvoi 



REVELATION. 201 

is rendered "were sealed" twelve times, though "were 

sealed," there, can scarcely be understood as pluperfect. 

12. " There was" = iysvero, — not " came" or " followed," 

cf. viii. 1, etc. 

VII. 

1. "That no wind should" for "that the wind should 
not" = iva jut) nvk-q avs/ios = " that wind should not 
blow." Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 9 and Luke xxii. 34. An articular 
throe. 

2. " Great" for "loud" (voice), again. See v. 12, note. 

3. " Till we shall have sealed" for " till we have sealed." 
But one is only the shortened, and the ordinary and easy, 
form for the other. Cf. their own translation at John viii. 
28; Rom. xi. 25; Gal. iv. 19 ("be" for "shall be"); 1 Cor. 
xi. 26, " come" for " shall come;" etc., etc. 

12. "Blessing and glory and wisdom," etc. Here they 
at length omit the articles with which they encumber the 
sense elsewhere. Cf. iv. 11 ; v. 13, etc. ; also Matt. viii. 12, 
etc., " the weeping." 

14. "I say" for " I said" = eiprjua, followed immediately 
by the co-ordinated £Z7T£=" he said." (?) 

15. " Spread his tabernacle" for " dwell." Cf. xxi. 3, and 

John i. 14. 

VIII. 

1. "There followed a silence" for "there was silence" = 
iyevero 6iyr). But see verse 7 and vi. 12 and xvi. 18. And 
what would be the Greek for "silence," which should be 
neither "the silence" nor " a silence" ? "In heaven" = 
iv top ovpavo). 

2. "There were given unto them" for "to them were 
given" =ido^T]Gav avtoiS. Cf. Matt. x. 32, 33, and Mark 
iii. 17, "them he surnamed" for "he surnamed them" = 
ine^fjKSv avroii ovopiara. 

3. "Add it unto the prayers" for " offer [give] it with 
the prayers." So the margin of A. V. But cf. the next 
verse, where they say " with the prayers" for the very same 
construction, i.e. the simple dative with a verb of action. 

5. "Taketh" for " took" = eilr?cpev, "and filled" = 
iy£fiii(7€v. Here again we have a perfect coordinated with 



202 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

an aorist, where both should be translated either in the 
perfect or in the, preterite (see note, ii. 2-9). "Followed" 
for " were" = eytrovro. • but cf. xvi. iS, etc. It is true 
that, in verse 7, the A. V. put "followed" for eytvero; but 
they professedly study variety; and why should the Re- 
visers change in some places, while yet they retain the 
variety? Remember "straightway." 

9. " Even they that had" for " that had" = ra e'xovra. 
This follows the change of case; but does it give the real 
sense ? Is it meant that all that had life died ? or only a 
third part of them ? 

10. " From heaven a great star," — ex rov ovpavov. See 
also ix. 1. Not " out of heaven," nor " out of the heaven." 

IX. 

1. " Heaven" and "the earth;" — both with articles in 
the Greek. Cf. vi. 13, and Acts iv. 24. 

6. "Men shall seek" for [then] "shall men seek" = 
8,riTr)6 ov 6 iv oi av$pGQ7roz. "In no wise" for " not" = 
ov p.7). But cf. iii. 3, etc. 

7. '' Men's faces" for "the faces of men" = npoaoonoc 
avSpo!)7tGQr, — as though, in English, the one did not imply 
the article which the other expresses. Is not the. change 
s\m\j\.y puerile ? And why did not the learned Revisers say 
" women's hair" for "the hair of women" = r/)/j»; yvv- 
aixoov, immediately afterwards? According to their ap- 
parent principles of translation one would have a right to 
infer that there was an article with " the hair" and none 
with " faces." Yet they are inconsistent even with their ap- 
parent principle ; for, at x. 10, they render ex rip %eip6z 
rov ayytXov "out of the angel's hand;" while at Matt, 
xii. 40, they change " the whale's belly" into "the belly of 
the whale." And then, too, what becomes of the articular 
precision of "the Lord's servant" at 2 Tim. ii. 24? 

9. "War" for " battle" = noXe}xov. But the context 
requires "battle." See note, 1 Cor. xiv. 8. 

14. "At the great river Euphrates" = tg3 rtorapicp rep 
peyaXcp Evq)parr\. Why did they not say : " the river, 
even the great," etc. ? Cf. xiv. 19, etc. 



RE VELA TION. 203 

17. "Breastplates as of fire" for "breastplates of fire." 
The A. V. is faithful. " As heads of lions" follows in the 
Greek with gdZ : there is therefore a difference in the two 
cases. "Like brimstone" they might have said, for the 
Greek has Seioodeis. 

19, 20. "With" = £V (bis). 

20. "Devils and the idols" = ra dai)j.ovia xai ra 
ei'dooXa — alike with the article in the Greek. 

X. 

1. " Arrayed" for " clothed" = 7tepi/3e/3X^juevov. Why 
didn't they say, " enveloped in," and have done with it ? 
The A. V., indeed, uses "arrayed" elsewhere; but why 
should faithfulness require a change here? What is the 
difference ? See note, at viii. 5, upon eyivero. 

4. " A voice from heaven" =.<pcovi)v ex rov ovpavov: 
and so at xiv. 13 and xviii. 4. But cf. Matt. iii. 17 ; Mark 
i. 11, "a voice out of the heavens" = cpoovrj ex tgdv ovpa- 
vdov : and Luke iii. 22; John xii. 28; Acts xi. 9, etc., 
" out of heaven" = ex rov ovpavov. 

7. " Is finished," — an aorist. 

9. " Saying unto him that he should give me" ==Xeyajv 
avTGp Sovvai juoi (a new text) = "telling (or asking) him 
to give me." And see "to" for "unto" at ii. 1, 8, 12, 18 ; 
iii. 1, 7, 14, etc., etc. Yet here, in an original translation 
of theirs, and having no A. V. to correct, they say " unto" ! 
What irresistible constraint of faithfulness ! See Acts xxi. 
21, note. 

10. "When I had eaten" = ore ecpayov .• but cf. 

"opened" for "had opened" (with the 2d and the 7th 

seals). 

XI. 

2. "Nations" for "Gentiles;" but cf. Luke xxi. 24; 
Rom. ix. 24, etc. The "nations" are here contradis- 
tinguished from the Jews. 

3. "Give" for " give power." But what, then, do they 
give ? 

5. "Desireth to" for " will" = Sekei .• and so again in 
this, and in the 6th verse. But is it the mere desire that is 



204 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

meant, without the executive purpose or volition ? There 
is no ambiguity in the A. V. from the use of will, for it 
cannot properly stand in these connections as the auxiliary 
to form the future tense ; — that would be shall. 

10. " Dwell" for "dwelt." But see "tormented." The 
tense of the participle in the translation follows that of the 
governing verb. See xiv. 18. " He called to him that had 
the sharp sickle," where "him that had" is for a present 
participle. 

17. " Hast taken and didst reign;" — another instance of 
ziXrjcpaS coordinated with an aorist. Cf. viii. 5 ; v. 7, there 
rendered by a present. 

18. "The small and the great" for " small and great ;" 
but cf. " heaven and earth," Luke xxi. 33, etc. 

19 and 15. " Followed" for "were" = eyevovro. So the 

A. V. at viii. 7 ; but see vi. 12; Matt. viii. 26, etc. ; and 

note at viii. 5. 

XII. 

5. " Was delivered of" for "brought forth" = srexev : 
consequential; — but see verse 13, where they render 
"brought forth" for this identical case, word, and tense. 

15. " River," " stream" — 7torajj.ov P 7torajJ.oq)opr/rov — 
for "flood" in both cases (fluvius). Cf. "straightway," 
and Acts xxvi. 24 ; 1 Cor. xv. 27, 28. 

17. " Waxed wroth" for " was wroth" = Gopyia^tf. Cf. 
Matt, xviii. 34; xxii. 7; Luke xiv. 21 ; xv. 28; and above 
at xi. 18, where they translate by "being wroth" or 
"angry ;" — consequential ? " Straightway." " Hold" for 
" have" = exovroov : — consequential again ? 

XIII. 

6. "Even them that dwell in the heaven." Here heaven 
seems to be the abode of the blessed, and not the visible 
sky ; and yet they give it the article in English. 

8. " Hath been written" for " is [are] written" = yey part- 
ial! "That hath been slain" for "slain" = rov 
€(f(paypitvov. (?) 

10. "With" -» iv (bis). 

12. " Death stroke" for "deadly wound" = n\r}yrj rov 






REVELATION. 205 

Saratov. Death stroke is often used in English for no 
"wound" (n\r)yrj) at all. 

13. "That he should make'' for " so that he maketh" = 
tv a 7toirj. (?) Cf. verse 15. 

15. " That the image should," etc. (i'va). Here "that" 
= " so that." Cf. 13, and the relation in the two cases. 

16. " The small and the great, and the rich and the poor, 
and the free and the bond" for " both small and great, rich 
and poor," etc. What is the difference in the sense? And 
see "heaven and earth," etc., etc. "That there be given 
them" for "to receive" = i'va dooGiv avroz?= " that they 
should give them." So, after all, the Revisers are not 
literal, if that is what is meant by faithful j and meantime 
the A. V. gives the simple resultant sense. 

17. " He that hath" for " he that had" = 6 i'xGOV : — then 

they should have omitted their " should" just before, as in 

verse 16. 

XIV. 

2. "As the voice" (bis) ; no article in the Greek. 

3. " Out of the earth" for " from the earth" = an 6 rr/S 
yijS. 

6. "An eternal Gospel" for " the everlasting Gospel." 
No article in the Greek; but qucere? and cf. "'the heavenly 
Jerusalem." " To proclaim" for "to preach" = svayye- 
Xiaai. But cf. Matt. xi. 5; Luke iii. 18; iv. 18,43; xvi. 
16 ; 1 Cor. i. 17 ; Gal. i. 8 ; Eph. ii. 17. 

11. "They that worship." There is no ground in the 
Greek for this repeated "they." Cf. John ii. 9, where they 
do not say " the servants, they which." " Whoso" = sins 
= " if any one." Cf. xx. 15, where they substitute " if 
any" for "whosoever." Cf. also verse 9. 

12. "They that" for "here are they that." The inser- 
tion is grammatically necessary, although the "here" is 
not repeated in the new text. 

14. "A son of man" for "the Son of man." Wherefore, 
then, "son" at all? Why "a son of man" rather than 
simply "a man," if that is all that is meant? Christians 
had, from prophecy, from Jewish tradition, and from the 
teaching of our Lord, a vivid idea of the glory of " the Son 



206 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

of man." See Stephen's dying vision. Even if it was " a 
son of man" to the prophet Daniel, it was nevertheless 
"the Son of man" to those who applied the prophecy. The 
angel, in verse 15, may utter a prayer or request rather than 
a command. 

16. " Cast his sickle upon the earth" for "thrust in his 
sickle," etc., = i'fiaXev to dpertavov avrov enl rr)v yrjv. 
What does this mean ? faithfulness to the Greek (3<xXXgd ? 
But compare verse 15 ; and see Matt. x. 34, where they say 
" to send peace on the earth" for fiaXeiv eiprjvtjv ini rr)v 
yi]r. 

18. "He that hath" for "that had" = 6 i'xGov. (?) The 
"he" is unnecessary. Cf. Rom. ix. 5; and "had" is re- 
quired in connection with the preterite verb. Cf. the fol- 
lowing words, " him that had the sharp sickle." 

19. "Cast his sickle," again, for " thrust," etc. "The 
wine-press, the great wine-press of the wrath of God" for 
" the great wine-press of the wrath of God" = rrjv Xrjvov 
rov Svjaov rov Qsou rrjv /xsyaXpv = "the wine-press of 
the wrath of God, the great (one)." So, after all, they 
have not retained the order of the Greek ; and why have 
they any more right to put in " wine-press" twice in Eng- 
lish for once in Greek, than to make the order of the words 
in English different from that in the Greek — the sense 
remaining the same? Cf. ix. 14 (xvi. 12) ; Mark i. 26 ; 
and the " daily bread" of the Lord's Prayer. 

20. " The bridles of the horses" for " the horse bridles." 

"As far as" for "by the space of" = ano. What is the 

difference of sense ? 

XV. 

1. " Is finished, " — an aorist. 

2. "Come victorious" for "had gotten the victory" = 
vinoovraS. After " I saw," the participle should be ren- 
dered by a preterite verb ; — "came" for " come," or still 
better "were victorious," or " had gotten the victory;" — 
there is no " come" in the text. 

3. " O Lord God the Almighty" for " O Lord God Al- 
mighty ;" and so, often, in this book. It is true, the Greek 
has the article; but is not English usage settled to have 



RE VELA TION. 207 

" Almighty" in such connections without the article? And 
why does faithfulness to the original require its insertion 
with "Almighty" any more than with "God"? The 
Greek is 6 QeoG as well as 6 TtavronpaxGop. English 
usage settles one case, and why not the other ? By way of 
showing their diligent consistency, however, the Revisers, 
at xix. 15, have put "Almighty God" for rov Qsov rov 
notvroupdropoZ, — not "the Almighty God," nor "God 
the Almighty." 

6. "And there came out from the temple the seven an- 
gels that had" for "and the seven angels came out of the 
temple having." This important change is made because 
their text has 01 before i'xovres. " Arrayed with precious 
stone pure and bright" for "clothed (ivdedvjxivoi) in 
pure and (the old text has nai) white linen." If we must 
have "stone" (not "stones") for "linen," why insert 
"precious" out of the whole cloth, and "and"too_, which is 
especially thrown out of their text ? Why not boldly say, 
"clothed in pure, bright stone," and be faithful to the 
original? "Arrayed," in the Revision, elsewhere = nspi- 

/3efi\t?utvoS. 

XVI. 

1. "Go ye" for " go your ways" = V7t dyers : but cf. 
Matt, xxvii. 65 ; Luke x. 3 and xix. 30. In the last pas- 
sage they substitute "go your way" for " go ye" = V7tdyere ! 

3. " Even the things that were" = rd = " whatever was 1 * 
(or were)^(}) 

5. " Didst thus judge" for " hast judged thus." (?) This 
aorist is coordinated with a perfect "hast given;" and, in 
the connection, the simple English naturally is a perfect. 
See note, ii. 2-9. 

7, 14. " God the Almighty" for "God Almighty." Cf. 
xix. 15. 

9. " The God which" for " God which." Why did they 
not say just above, " O Lord, the God, the Almighty" ? Is 
the author a polytheist ? 

12. " The great river, the river Euphrates." '''•River" is 
utterly unnecessary, if not the "the" also. But let us be 
thankful that their faithfulness did not lead them to say 



208 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

" the river, the great river, the river Euphrates," exactly 
after the Greek order. " The kings that co?ne from the 
sunrising" for "... of the East" = tgdv ano avaroXGov 
rjXiov. There is no need of the " come j ' and, if they could 
not say " East" for " sunrising," why did they not render 
" from the risings of the sun'' ? Is not avaroXc^v plural ? 

15. " Lest" = i'va jj.?]. But cf. Col. ii. 4; iii. 22; Phil, 
ii. 27 ; Heb. iv. 11, etc., etc., where they change to "that 
not." But in several other places, as at 1 Tim. iii. 7, they 
render " lest." 

18. ''Were" and "was" = iytvero. This they have 
many times changed to "followed" — see viii. 1, 5, etc., etc. 
— consequential — " straightway." 

21. "Hail cometh down out of heaven" = in rov 
ovpavov y — not "the heaven." And cf. viii. 10, "from hea- 
ven." Did it then come from the abode of the blessed? 
Cf. Acts xi. 9, etc. ; — "a voice out of heaven." But perhaps, 
after all, they have no rule, but insert or omit the article with 
" heaven" ad lib. — provided only they may diverge from the 
A. V. But see x. 8; xi. 12; xiv. 2, 13; xviii. 4, where they 
render "a voice from heaven," not " out of heaven." 

XVII. 

8. "They" is needless. 

10. "Are fallen," — an aorist. 

12. "Have received," — an aorist. 

14. " Also shall overcome" for "are." (?) 

17. "Did put" for " hath put" = i'daoKev. (?) " To come 
to one mind" for "to agree" —7toi?}6ai p.iav yvGOfxr/v. (?) 

17. "Should be accomplished" for " shall be fulfilled" 
= reXea^i'jGovrai. This change of tense follows from 
"did put," above; but the future here tends to show that 
it should have been " hath put," as in the A. V. 

XVIII. 

2. " Fallen is," — the aorist. " Is become," — the aorist. 
3. "Are fallen," — the perfect. Thus they rightly render 
an aorist and a perfect alike in coordinated phrases; and 
see note, ii. 2-9. But again, "committed" for " have com- 



REVELATION. 209 

milted," — an aorist. " Waxed rich" for " are waxen rich," 
— an aorist; and then, verse 5, ''have reached" =indKkr]- 
Sr/ffav, and " hath remembered" = i^vrjjAovevaav. 

10. If, instead of putting " woe" for " alas" in this and 
several other instances, they had put "alas" for "woe" in 
many cases where the A. V. has the latter, as in the Gos- 
pels, they would have secured the true sense and prevented 
mistakes. Here the sense may be the same with either 
word, for it is plain a malediction is not intended, even if 
"woe" is used. Say " woe" for the noun and " alas" for 
the interjection ? 

14. "Are gone," " are perished," for aorists. 

17, 19. " Is made desolate," for the aorist. 

21. " A strong angel" for " a mighty angel" = icrxvpo?. 
But cf. xix. 18, where iGx v pG> v ar e " mighty men." Con- 
sequential, "straightway." 

21. "A mighty fall" for "violence" = op)xr}}xorti = 
" with a sudden ruin' ' ? 

23. "The princes" for "the great men" = /tsyiGTdvss- 
Etymology favors the A. V. 

24. " That have been slain" for " that were slain" = rcbv 

scxcpayjuevGDV = " that had been slain,' ' in connection with 

a preterite verb as here ; and " were slain" comes nearer 

this than " have been slain" does. Indeed, the Revisers 

often use it as a form of the pluperfect. Cf. xx. 4 ; Matt. 

xxii. 3, etc. 

XIX. 

1. " Salvation and glory," etc. Here again, as at vii. 12, 
they omit the articles which they have so often inserted in 
similar ascriptions ; but they insert "belong" as though it 
were certainly in the text ; — qu&re ? 

2. " Hath judged," — aorist; " hath avenged, " — aorist. 

4. " That sitteth" for " that sat. " Do they forget that it is 
told as a vision ? Cf. verses 19 and 21. 

5. " Give praise to" for " praise" = aiveirs. (?) 

6. "Reigneth," — aorist. 

7. "Is come," " hath made,"— jaorists. 

8. " Was given," — aorist. 

9. "These are true words of God" for "these are the 



2lo NOTES ON THE LATE KE VISION 

true sayings of God" = Ovroi oiXoyoi a\rj$ivoi rov Qsov 
siffi. But what has become of the article, and that after 
"these"? (Cf. Mark xii. 31.) "Bidden" for " called" = 
x£?{\tjjLi£voi. It was not possible to refrain from this im- 
portant emendation consistently with faithfulness ? 

11. "Saw the heaven [for 'heaven'] opened" = rov 
ovpavov. See Acts x. 11, note. 

12, 13. "Are" for "were." (?) The latter is probably 
preferable — not certain. Some of the verbs describing this 
vision are in the present and some in the past ; but the 
visions are generally described in the past. 

14. Here they say, " the armies which are [for ' were'] in 
heaven followed him." This is certainly harsh, but is 
printed as if " are" were in the text, which it is not. 

15. "Wrath of Almighty God" = rr/S opyr)S rov Qsov 
rov navroHparopoS. They fprget their article with Al- 
mighty. Cf. xvi. 7, 14, where they have " God the Al- 
mighty," for the very same Greek. 

17. "A loud voice" = cpoovr] jusyaXrj. They forget their 
apocalyptic "great voice." 

iS. " Mighty men" = iax v P^ >v - They forget their 
"strong angel" at xviii. 21. 

20. " Them that had received'' = rovs XafiorraS : " them 
that worshipped" = rov? npoonvvovvraS — with a preter- 
ite verb — right ; aorist participle as a pluperfect, and pres- 
ent participle as a preterite, — and so the" A. V. Cf. Matt, 
xxv. 16, 17, iS. "They twain" for "these both"= oidvo. 
How important ! And, after all, it is not " they twain" 
but simply "the twain" or "the two" or {tons les deux) 
"both." At Matt. xix. 5, the Revisers substitute "the 
twain" for " they twain" as the rendering for 01 6vo\ 

2i. "The sword of him that sat [rov na^frffXFVOv) even 
the sword which came forth" for " which sword proceeded," 
(rTf egeXSovffri :) — one participle is present and the other 
aorist, and they are rendered alike in the preterite. 

XX. 

4. " Such as" for " whifch" = oi'rives ==" who" or " those 
who." " Had been" for " were" ; but either makes a plu- 



211 

$ 

perfect passive. " Worshipped" and " received" for "had,*' 
etc. ; but this would imply the imperfect, here. 

12. " And I saw the dead, the great and the small" ; — ar- 
ticular faithfulness ; Greek for English idiom, see " heaven 
and earth." " Out of the things which were written" = 
in tgqv y€ypafii/*evGDV, — not " have been" nor " had been. " 
Cf. verse 4 and vi. 9 ; v. 12, etc. 

XXL 

1. "Are passed away" for "were passed away"= an 
aorist ! 

2. '.' Made ready" for ''prepared" = rftoi^iaajjiEvrfy. See 
note, Matt. iii. 3. 

9. " The wife of the lamb" for "the lamb's wife." Faith- 
fulness ! And cf. x. 10, " the angel's hand." 

17. "According to the measure of a man" == jjisrpov 
<xv%f)GD7tov. No article with juerpov. Why did not they 
compromise upon "a man's measure"? "Of an angel" 
for "of the angel." (?) 

XXIL 

17. " He that heareth let him say' for " let him that hear- 
eth say" = o auovaov einaroD : and similarly twice more, 
<4 he that is athirst," " he that will" . . . "let him." And 
so also, both the Revisers and the A. V. in the Epistles to 
the Churches at ii. 7, 11, 17, etc. But at Mark iv. 9, the 
Revisers put "who ... let him" for "he that. . .let 
him" ; while at Matt. xiii. 9, 43 they put " he that ... let 
him" for " who . ". .let him" ; at Matt, xxiii. 20, 21, they 
put "he that" for " whosoever." The A. V. uses different 
renderings, and so do the Revisers. In correcting the A. V. 
here, they have preferred the more cumbrous and ungram- 
matical English to the simpler and more grammatical. And 
it may be observed that the reason why the A. V. translated 
as it did in the Gospels and in the Epistles to the Churches, 
is that the law of euphony required it. The ear would have 
been offended with " let him that hath an ear, hear" ; or, 
still worse, " let him that hath an ear to hear, hear." But 
that the Revisers need not have made their correction in this 



212 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 

place, is evident from their own rendering at Rom. xiv. 3, 
where, with the A. V., they translate this same construction 
of the Greek " let not him that eateth set at naught him 
that eateth not ; and let not him that eateth not judge him 
that eateth' '== 6 effSiajv rov jjltj ioSiovra ja?) e^ov^evshw, 
6 Sh jxrf effSicjv rov iaSiovra jxi) npivkroD. See also 
1 Cor. x. 12, " Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed 
lest he fall." They do not say " he that eateth let him 
not," etc. ; wherefore, then, did faithfulness compel them 
to amend the A. V. here, and say " he that heareth let him 
say come," etc., instead of the simple, dear, old, familiar 
words, "let him that heareth say, Come; and let him that 
is athirst come ; and whosoever will, let him take the water 
of life freely" ? 



\ 



■i 



